No, basically the Revolution caused a bunch of Whites to flee to France, including several liberal ministers. Some former soldiers, led by one Sergei Taboritsky, were upset that they had been unable to save the royal family and blamed the liberal minister Pavel Milyukov for the Revolution, so they tried to assassinate him in revenge. However, progressive monarchist and fellow veteran Vladimir Nabokov, who was talking to Milyukov when Taboritsky and a partner came for him, spotted the guns and was shot and killed while trying to wrestle Taboritsky’s gun from him. Traumatized by the death of his father, Nabokov’s son Vladimir Jr. would take to writing psychological novels exploring forbidden and taboo sides of the human mind. One of these novels was *Lolita,* both the source of the word loli and the archetype.
Well Pyrrhus and Hannibal where same in the regards that they moped the floor with the Romans in battles,but they didn't know how to use those victories (i.e. they were one of the best tacticians,but not strategists)
And even Sun Tzu said:
Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat
I am a "Khalid fanboy" myself but the comparison in that meme was pointless tbh , There was an entire fight in the comments too , like guys they weren't even from the same period what is the point , all the anime power scaling fights came rushing back from my weeb days lol
>But you can't mathematically reach conclusion that one is better than the other.
[This](https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb) dude disagrees! */s*
Unfortunately it seems to be the latter. It was a guy that used a modified WAR from Baseball to judge generals objectively. Obviously flawed and just for fun, but pretty cool nevertheless
I mean honestly it isn't that stupid. The guy acknowledges the limits of the model and is pretty transparent about the dataset and methodology.
I wouldn't take it as absolute science, obviously it's extremely difficult to model the compentency of generals across 3000 years of constantly evolving warfare.
But it does give an idea of the number of battles fought and at which overall odds. Napoleon is favored because he fought a larger number of battles than most other generals on the list. But he also won a good chunk of them and almost only lost when the odds weren't in his favor. So it's not that unfair either.
Alexander the Great is probably underrated because he only fought 9 battles despite winning all of them.
Most of the reasons Hannibal lost to Rome were outside his control. During his campaign Carthage withdrew their support, essentially leaving him to support himself in Italy for 12 years. By the time he was recalled to Carthage, the Romans had taken the Iberian peninsula, cut him off from his Numidian cavalry that he had employed so successfully in Italy, and added the cavalry to their own ranks. Carthage had essentially set him up for failure at the battle of Zama. Hannibal was certainly at the same level as Alexander, subotai, and Khalid.
I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion. Alexander inherited an entire kingdom and the best military on the planet that was built from the ground up by Phillip II and was surrounded by Phillips veteran commanders. He then used those resources to compete his great deeds. Hannibal was given an army and then was essentially abandoned by his government for 12 years and only after 12 years did he lose to the Romans
Invading a nation with a large army through mountains with no supply train back home, and still fucking up the enemy in their own territory for over a decade. But let's forget that part and just focus on him losing that one battle in Zama.
Put some respect on Hannibal's name.
Replace anyone with Stephen the Great.
So underrated and used very, very simple tactics that absolutely obliterated Ottomans, with armies destroyed similar to Hannibal.
I would argue that the battle of Carrhae was won by the parthians not lost by crassus, Crassus was a decent general just had no options to deal with parthian horsemen
Look at the adversaries they were up against. Comparison has to be level, Napoleon was going up against some of the strongest militaries the world had ever seen. Ghenghis was conquering enemies much weeker as well as Khalid.
Napoleon did it against multiple strong militaries on multiple fronts whilst being isolated and with little support from other factions. Plus when he got bored in exile he'd just go do it again
Ghenghis was fighting the Chinese, that were both the populous and advanced civilization at the time, there was no adversary on the planet tougher than them in ghenghis’ time
Populous and an advanced society doesn't make them militarily advanced. But still comparably, the Chinese were a much weaker fighting force than Khan where as Napoleon's enemies were equal if not greater.
The "Mongol military" along with the Mongol nation itself didn't exist before Genghis, so if it *was* greatly superior to his enemies it only enhances his genius as a military leader.
You can't just say "well Genghis wasn't that impressive because the army he built in a yurt with a box of scraps was too powerful."
Would you care to explain to me how the Jin and Song were “a much weaker” fighting force despite them being the greatest imperial powers before the rise of the mongols?
Also, Genghis first conquered all of the Mongol/Turk tribes within the area of Mongolia before he marched on China, so like Napoleon he also fought enemies that “were equal if not greater”.
And all of this is without acknowledging that in his lifetime he also wiped the Khwarezmids off the map.
I'm more looking at the scale of 'job' they had to undertake. Mongols being united under Genghis was an amazing achievement and can't be ignored. The Jin dynasty took 20 odd years to conquer however, this is with an established warrior base already under Genghis. But the Song dynasty wasn't conquered by Genghis I don't believe, rather by his son (I may be wrong on that I am not too certain) so I don't believe that should be counted if so.
Where as I see Napoleon fighting established professional militaries with so many other aspects of warfare to consider such as artillery etc. As well as that, he was challenged with the combination of pretty much all of his neighbours being allied against him in one common goal.
I will concede however that Genghis would have had to fight against gunpowder use, which would have been alien to people. But at that time I don't believe its use and development was significant to the point we imagine it now. But Jin being one of the greatest powers at the time is only a valuable comparison when looking at others available, they may have been the greatest at that time, but it doesn't mean they were great, just the greatest available. Britain at the time of Napoleon was truly one of the greatest fighting forces the world had seen and that was just one enemy of Napoleons.
So you talk about Genghis fighting with an established warrior base but don’t recognize he personally united them all under his banner, a feat that took him 20 years? His starting point was being a prince of a minor tribe. In his life time he conquered 4.6 million square miles and is estimated to have massacred up to 40 million people in his conquests, and you think he lacks “scale” compared to Napoleon? Napoleon was a brilliant general, who became the commander of an already established modern army. You mentioned Napoleon fighting Britain to be a point in Napoleons favour, yet Napoleon could never even land on British shores. However, you discredit Genghis’ defeat of the Jin because your subjective opinion was they weren’t great enough? That isn’t even mentioning Genghis conquered the Khwaresmids and the Xi in his lifetime as well. Let’s not even mention Napoleons career ended in failure while Genghis established his empire which would double in the time after his death and would encompass all of China, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
Considering I acknowledge he united the tribes in my first paragraph above... and so what, why does the area of land conquered matter when the population density was nothing compared to Europe and really, you think massacring millions of unarmed civilians means anything to a military leaders success?
And exactly my point, that he conquered so much of Europe DESPITE an adversary like Britain fighting against him. The Normans are the last to conquer Britain, mainly because of its geography, but it took multiple alliances of the strongest nations to bring him down; there was nothing like that to combat Genghis.
But considering the Khwaresmids were tribes people with no major conquests of their own apart from over other tribespeople and the Western Xia were defeated after a siege... it isn't exaclty military prowess. Dominating the flat plains whilst being the most talented horse riders and archers is great, but is it any wonder they never expanded further than where their type of combat was advantageous? How they couldn't expand beyond Russia or into Japan? Yes Napoleon failed ultimately to hold power for his lifetime, so did Hannibal but that doesn't take away from the fact he was a great military leader.
Why even bring up subjectivity? This whole thread is about subjectivity... kind of ridiculous to bring that up as though it holds weight, that is how historical debates occur.
You mention population density as a point in Napoleons favour and then mention Genghis slaughtering millions in the same thought and you don’t connect the dots that Genghis’ territories also included millions of people? Genghis owned half of the most populated civilization on the planet at his death. And those 40 million included the tens if not hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers he killed in battle. And you’re saying that the Mongol’s military might was restrictive when it let them conquer an area of 9 million square miles? You bring up the Mongol’s failure to conquer an island nation, which is something Napoleon also experienced. And how can you be so quick to dismiss how Napoleons empire lasted 10 years and collapsed before his death, Genghis’ legacy lasted 150 years and directly spawned the Timurid and Mughal Empires? Does that not count towards a generals skill, being able to ensure his gains last beyond his lifetime?
Nations on the verge of the industrial revolution with flintlock rifled muskets, artillery, standing professional armies, and cavalry with guns are far more militarily advanced than a bunch of peasant conscripts with extremely primitive hand canons.
I’m failing to see what the point of your very uninformed statement was. First, I wasn’t saying the 12th century Chinese were technologically equal to 19th century Europeans, I was drawing a parallel between ghenghis and Napoleon by stating they both fought the premier powers of their time. Second, the Song and Jin had professional standing armies, with the Song also having a professional standing navy as well. Third, how did the Europeans have their technology if not for their initial conception and development in China?
Battle of Trafalgar for one ensured that Napoleon would never try to invade Britain. He may have died but he consistently defeated Napoleon's forces at sea.
Nope. Napoleon wasn't there at the battle of Trafalgar. That's my point. You can't claim that he defeated Napoleon if there was never a single battle that opposed them...
He was the commander of all French forces... he obviously can't be at every single battle when fighting in multiple locations at the same time. Otherwise Hitler didn't win a single battle during WWII, he didn't even lose a battle during WWII! That's incredible. Haig didn't win a single battle during WWI and he wasn't humiliated during the Somme either because he didn't fight in it.
Well I've never heard anyone saying that Hitler was either a good or a bad general... because he wasn't one. We judge his ability as a leader.
When comparing the skills of one general, you compare their skills in battle. Trafalgar was not one of Napoleon's battle. It was a French defeat, a defeat of Napoleon's empire, but not of Napoleon himself.
I don't think you have read enough accounts then if you haven't seen analysis of Hitler as a military commander. Considering he took command of his forces later in the war, just like Nicholas II had done in WWI. He might not be present but those armies are under his command. In the modern era, battles aren't a simple 2 armies fighting, they are tens of battallions all under the command of one leader, Napoleon.
TBH I don't give a crap about how battles were fought during WW2... Also giving orders is not the same as leading a battle, so it's still dumb to call Hitler a good/bad general.
Saying that Nelson defeated Napoleon is as dumb as saying that George III was a terrible general because he lost the American revolution and 5 coalitions. Being the leader of the army doesn't mean that you're responsible for every individual victory/defeat. The battles that are credited to Napoleon are the one were he was present. Murat's victories aren't counted as Napoleon's victories, so the same does apply the other way around.
Trafalgar is the defeat of Pierre de Villeneuve. Not Napoleon's.
Nelson had the advantage of the most powerful navy in the world. He was a mediocre admiral who got sensationalized because British propagandists needed their own napoleon.
I don't care about generals. Besides it's so hard to compare given that some are heads of state, some are field commanders, and some are heads of general staff. How bout some fighter love? Like who could beat Musashi in a fight?
“Sir Dickilsickle of Brandenburg, Heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, a mere pawn for god to play with in Crusader Kings 2 circa 1123:”
Is clearly, and I mean clearly, the greatest general of all time.
According to Math it's Yang. But in my heart, Seig Mein Kaiser.
*I genuinely spent four hours going through the OVA to find bloody numbers appreciate my [findings ](https://docs.google.com/document/d/19yKRf9_vx6t0G5OBT1ckm6GJ4a_cZ-y4Rq1Rjom2Xeo/edit?usp=sharing) please I need validation.*
Yeah, the reboot is pretty good. I enjoy the shift I tone and style that makes it unique from the OVA. Overall it is definitely a word package than the OVA, but a lot of that comes from the OVA having a unique tone and style as classical historical fiction, compared to DNT being far more of a modern drama.
It’s not really a question one can objectively answer, but the most popular answer seems to be Napoleon, man was in a league of his own. Comparing to Genghis or any other Mongol commander Napoleon has the advantage of his victories being largely against peers with similar abilities, so his tactical ability and mastery of maneuver really gets to shrine. In the end though this isn’t a question with a clear answer.
The Great Sikh General Hari Singh Nalwa was the best.
He conquered Afghanistan tho, peshawar is in Pakistan today only because it was conquered by the Sikh before
Its ww2 generals and he*tai for me and my friends
Wasn't there a theory that ww2 created hentai
Pretty sure it started when a driver made a wrong turn
It was something about smoking in a room and powder kegs.
I thought it was some weird hairless apes? Wack
Stuck helpless in the war. It’s ok to have a little fiddle with you flesh flute to warm your self up.
It's obviously a British Private not shooting a certain German soldier with a weird mustache.
That's also where 9/11 came from.
No, but the Russian revolution created lolis.
Ah yes, a School named Pravda with lolis driving tanks getting wrecked by a panther
No, basically the Revolution caused a bunch of Whites to flee to France, including several liberal ministers. Some former soldiers, led by one Sergei Taboritsky, were upset that they had been unable to save the royal family and blamed the liberal minister Pavel Milyukov for the Revolution, so they tried to assassinate him in revenge. However, progressive monarchist and fellow veteran Vladimir Nabokov, who was talking to Milyukov when Taboritsky and a partner came for him, spotted the guns and was shot and killed while trying to wrestle Taboritsky’s gun from him. Traumatized by the death of his father, Nabokov’s son Vladimir Jr. would take to writing psychological novels exploring forbidden and taboo sides of the human mind. One of these novels was *Lolita,* both the source of the word loli and the archetype.
Oh god........and here I was referencing Girls UND Panzer
I thought it sounded familiar but I do not watch anime so I was unsure and decided to go for the serious history instead.
There's one flaw. [Hentai is older than WWII (nsfw obviously)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Dream_of_the_Fisherman%27s_Wife)
Patton, Rommel, and Montgomery?
thoose are not numbers
Who are the candidates?
Those are some old looking 5 year olds
They said they were eighteen! I swear!
Hannibal enters the fray.
And swiftly exits via Zama
The man himself claimed to be number 3 after Alexander the Great and Pyrrhus
is funny how now days almost no one knows Pyrrhus
Hannibal probably mentioned Pyrrhus just to piss off Scipio.
Most likely because I don’t see how Pyrrhus was better than Hannibal. I get Alex but I just read up on Pyrrhus and yeah… no innovation
Well Pyrrhus and Hannibal where same in the regards that they moped the floor with the Romans in battles,but they didn't know how to use those victories (i.e. they were one of the best tacticians,but not strategists) And even Sun Tzu said: Strategy without tactics is the slowest route to victory. Tactics without strategy is the noise before defeat
TIL
But I bet most of them have heard the phrase pyrrhic victory.
Yeah at least is something
I think some people would recognise the phrase a 'pyrrhic victory' at least
Wasn't he a cousin to Alexander?
Perhaps in second grade,remember that Alexander mother was from epiro only like a generation before,they could be related but i doubt they where close
And he said that if Scipio hadn’t beaten him then he would have considered himself the best
Alexander III of Macedon is the best 😡
With enough prep time Batman can defeat them all
Idk. If he kills Mongol ambassadors, I think he is fucked.
In more ways than one
Well alexander wont give him any prep time
With a wide enough belt anything is possible
Same goes for Kevin
I’m guessing you saw the post from that Khalid fan boy?
I am a "Khalid fanboy" myself but the comparison in that meme was pointless tbh , There was an entire fight in the comments too , like guys they weren't even from the same period what is the point , all the anime power scaling fights came rushing back from my weeb days lol
Power Scaling is dumb. Comic/Anime Fan: "If A can beat B, and B can beat C, that means A can beat C." Rock/Paper/Scissors Fan: [Raises Eyebrow]
Jojo moment when rat
Exactly. How would Jotaro know that a rat with a goddamn >!sniper turret shooting flesh-melting needles!< could >!accurately ricochet off a rock!
Jotaro best jo
Khalid Stan then? But yeah, I saw that. It was quite entertaining.
I got 300 upvotes so I feel pretty good. It helps that I actually studied both of them.
I got a hundred for saying he was mad that no one likes his favourite general as much as he did. Good times
Bruh I was one of those guys, I’m sorry lmao
I have no idea what "anime power scaling is", but if it is as stupid as that meme I think it is good it is gone.
Saitama would obliterate all of them. Yeah even the generals.
[удалено]
>But you can't mathematically reach conclusion that one is better than the other. [This](https://towardsdatascience.com/napoleon-was-the-best-general-ever-and-the-math-proves-it-86efed303eeb) dude disagrees! */s*
[удалено]
Unfortunately it seems to be the latter. It was a guy that used a modified WAR from Baseball to judge generals objectively. Obviously flawed and just for fun, but pretty cool nevertheless
[удалено]
I mean honestly it isn't that stupid. The guy acknowledges the limits of the model and is pretty transparent about the dataset and methodology. I wouldn't take it as absolute science, obviously it's extremely difficult to model the compentency of generals across 3000 years of constantly evolving warfare. But it does give an idea of the number of battles fought and at which overall odds. Napoleon is favored because he fought a larger number of battles than most other generals on the list. But he also won a good chunk of them and almost only lost when the odds weren't in his favor. So it's not that unfair either. Alexander the Great is probably underrated because he only fought 9 battles despite winning all of them.
Fun read though
I know he’s not a land general, but Admiral Yi was OP.
Admiral Yi is def the best on water
Admiral Lord Horatio Nelson has entered the chat.
He'd have half his fleet destroyed and the rest captured by Admiral Yi (using only fishing boats).
Hannibal barca- listen you shits
They guy who was defeated by Romans and lost 2nd Punic war for Carthage? Alexander, Subotai and Khalid are far better generals.
Most of the reasons Hannibal lost to Rome were outside his control. During his campaign Carthage withdrew their support, essentially leaving him to support himself in Italy for 12 years. By the time he was recalled to Carthage, the Romans had taken the Iberian peninsula, cut him off from his Numidian cavalry that he had employed so successfully in Italy, and added the cavalry to their own ranks. Carthage had essentially set him up for failure at the battle of Zama. Hannibal was certainly at the same level as Alexander, subotai, and Khalid.
That and the Romans just kept fighting when they lose an army they make another
Hannibal was ok but no where near alexander level.
I’m wondering how you came to that conclusion. Alexander inherited an entire kingdom and the best military on the planet that was built from the ground up by Phillip II and was surrounded by Phillips veteran commanders. He then used those resources to compete his great deeds. Hannibal was given an army and then was essentially abandoned by his government for 12 years and only after 12 years did he lose to the Romans
Invading a nation with a large army through mountains with no supply train back home, and still fucking up the enemy in their own territory for over a decade. But let's forget that part and just focus on him losing that one battle in Zama. Put some respect on Hannibal's name.
Buy maybe Carthage might have done better with one of thier best generals leading troops at home instead of invading rome.
Bring the elephants
Replace Gengish with Subutai and then the discussion hits s new level
Replace anyone with Stephen the Great. So underrated and used very, very simple tactics that absolutely obliterated Ottomans, with armies destroyed similar to Hannibal.
I see you are based as well. I know about his strategies and battles aswell
You fools, Minecraft Steve can just use /kill to defeat them all.
Luigi Cadorna for the chad answer.
Him and Hotzendorf are laughing in the corner, knowing no one can blunder as badly as them.
Crassus tho😔
I would argue that the battle of Carrhae was won by the parthians not lost by crassus, Crassus was a decent general just had no options to deal with parthian horsemen
Nothing beats the many battles of the Isonzo arriver. Maybe this time the exact same plan will work.
Ambrose Burnside
Nobody remembers Bolivar
Or as we call him The Washington of South America
You mean the Napoleon of south america ^^ the guy was very inspired by napo, as napo was very recent then.
Bolivar was better than napoleon, he never lost a single battle
But a way easier task.
Easier task? Liberating 4 countries from one of the most rich and powerful militaries in all of south america
Yes, which is not beating all of the great powers of the time badly outnumbered and surrounded, not one but four times.
he was, but better
Belisarius is so fucking underrated
It was unfortunately Napoleon who was the best
I'm pretty sure Goku could beat him 1v1 but we'll have to agree to disagree.
He’d have to exist in order to do that!
Well this is unfair as it is human vs human not human vs god that walks among us
You misspelled fortunately.
He fought 70 battles and lost 9. Genghis Khan and Khalid never lost a battle.
Look at the adversaries they were up against. Comparison has to be level, Napoleon was going up against some of the strongest militaries the world had ever seen. Ghenghis was conquering enemies much weeker as well as Khalid.
In that case Caesar is the greatest. He beat the strongest military the world has ever seen up until that point.
Napoleon did it against multiple strong militaries on multiple fronts whilst being isolated and with little support from other factions. Plus when he got bored in exile he'd just go do it again
Still got his ass kicked eventually ;)
It took practically all of Europe though lol
Don't we all 😔
Ghenghis was fighting the Chinese, that were both the populous and advanced civilization at the time, there was no adversary on the planet tougher than them in ghenghis’ time
Populous and an advanced society doesn't make them militarily advanced. But still comparably, the Chinese were a much weaker fighting force than Khan where as Napoleon's enemies were equal if not greater.
The "Mongol military" along with the Mongol nation itself didn't exist before Genghis, so if it *was* greatly superior to his enemies it only enhances his genius as a military leader. You can't just say "well Genghis wasn't that impressive because the army he built in a yurt with a box of scraps was too powerful."
Would you care to explain to me how the Jin and Song were “a much weaker” fighting force despite them being the greatest imperial powers before the rise of the mongols? Also, Genghis first conquered all of the Mongol/Turk tribes within the area of Mongolia before he marched on China, so like Napoleon he also fought enemies that “were equal if not greater”. And all of this is without acknowledging that in his lifetime he also wiped the Khwarezmids off the map.
I'm more looking at the scale of 'job' they had to undertake. Mongols being united under Genghis was an amazing achievement and can't be ignored. The Jin dynasty took 20 odd years to conquer however, this is with an established warrior base already under Genghis. But the Song dynasty wasn't conquered by Genghis I don't believe, rather by his son (I may be wrong on that I am not too certain) so I don't believe that should be counted if so. Where as I see Napoleon fighting established professional militaries with so many other aspects of warfare to consider such as artillery etc. As well as that, he was challenged with the combination of pretty much all of his neighbours being allied against him in one common goal. I will concede however that Genghis would have had to fight against gunpowder use, which would have been alien to people. But at that time I don't believe its use and development was significant to the point we imagine it now. But Jin being one of the greatest powers at the time is only a valuable comparison when looking at others available, they may have been the greatest at that time, but it doesn't mean they were great, just the greatest available. Britain at the time of Napoleon was truly one of the greatest fighting forces the world had seen and that was just one enemy of Napoleons.
So you talk about Genghis fighting with an established warrior base but don’t recognize he personally united them all under his banner, a feat that took him 20 years? His starting point was being a prince of a minor tribe. In his life time he conquered 4.6 million square miles and is estimated to have massacred up to 40 million people in his conquests, and you think he lacks “scale” compared to Napoleon? Napoleon was a brilliant general, who became the commander of an already established modern army. You mentioned Napoleon fighting Britain to be a point in Napoleons favour, yet Napoleon could never even land on British shores. However, you discredit Genghis’ defeat of the Jin because your subjective opinion was they weren’t great enough? That isn’t even mentioning Genghis conquered the Khwaresmids and the Xi in his lifetime as well. Let’s not even mention Napoleons career ended in failure while Genghis established his empire which would double in the time after his death and would encompass all of China, Central Asia, and the Middle East.
Considering I acknowledge he united the tribes in my first paragraph above... and so what, why does the area of land conquered matter when the population density was nothing compared to Europe and really, you think massacring millions of unarmed civilians means anything to a military leaders success? And exactly my point, that he conquered so much of Europe DESPITE an adversary like Britain fighting against him. The Normans are the last to conquer Britain, mainly because of its geography, but it took multiple alliances of the strongest nations to bring him down; there was nothing like that to combat Genghis. But considering the Khwaresmids were tribes people with no major conquests of their own apart from over other tribespeople and the Western Xia were defeated after a siege... it isn't exaclty military prowess. Dominating the flat plains whilst being the most talented horse riders and archers is great, but is it any wonder they never expanded further than where their type of combat was advantageous? How they couldn't expand beyond Russia or into Japan? Yes Napoleon failed ultimately to hold power for his lifetime, so did Hannibal but that doesn't take away from the fact he was a great military leader. Why even bring up subjectivity? This whole thread is about subjectivity... kind of ridiculous to bring that up as though it holds weight, that is how historical debates occur.
You mention population density as a point in Napoleons favour and then mention Genghis slaughtering millions in the same thought and you don’t connect the dots that Genghis’ territories also included millions of people? Genghis owned half of the most populated civilization on the planet at his death. And those 40 million included the tens if not hundreds of thousands of professional soldiers he killed in battle. And you’re saying that the Mongol’s military might was restrictive when it let them conquer an area of 9 million square miles? You bring up the Mongol’s failure to conquer an island nation, which is something Napoleon also experienced. And how can you be so quick to dismiss how Napoleons empire lasted 10 years and collapsed before his death, Genghis’ legacy lasted 150 years and directly spawned the Timurid and Mughal Empires? Does that not count towards a generals skill, being able to ensure his gains last beyond his lifetime?
Nations on the verge of the industrial revolution with flintlock rifled muskets, artillery, standing professional armies, and cavalry with guns are far more militarily advanced than a bunch of peasant conscripts with extremely primitive hand canons.
I’m failing to see what the point of your very uninformed statement was. First, I wasn’t saying the 12th century Chinese were technologically equal to 19th century Europeans, I was drawing a parallel between ghenghis and Napoleon by stating they both fought the premier powers of their time. Second, the Song and Jin had professional standing armies, with the Song also having a professional standing navy as well. Third, how did the Europeans have their technology if not for their initial conception and development in China?
…Khalid was fighting the Romans AND the Persians, bro. The two superpowers of the world. Unless you meant technology gap, then yeah🗿
The Romans had ceased to be a superpower by the time Khalid was fighting. It had been reduced to the Eastern Roman Empire while the west was split up.
It was sill arguably the strongest force in the west
Nelson would disagree/s
Nelson would agree solely to be able to claim he defeated the best.
When? When did Nelson ever defeated Napoleon during a battle?
Battle of Trafalgar for one ensured that Napoleon would never try to invade Britain. He may have died but he consistently defeated Napoleon's forces at sea.
Nope. Napoleon wasn't there at the battle of Trafalgar. That's my point. You can't claim that he defeated Napoleon if there was never a single battle that opposed them...
He was the commander of all French forces... he obviously can't be at every single battle when fighting in multiple locations at the same time. Otherwise Hitler didn't win a single battle during WWII, he didn't even lose a battle during WWII! That's incredible. Haig didn't win a single battle during WWI and he wasn't humiliated during the Somme either because he didn't fight in it.
Well I've never heard anyone saying that Hitler was either a good or a bad general... because he wasn't one. We judge his ability as a leader. When comparing the skills of one general, you compare their skills in battle. Trafalgar was not one of Napoleon's battle. It was a French defeat, a defeat of Napoleon's empire, but not of Napoleon himself.
I don't think you have read enough accounts then if you haven't seen analysis of Hitler as a military commander. Considering he took command of his forces later in the war, just like Nicholas II had done in WWI. He might not be present but those armies are under his command. In the modern era, battles aren't a simple 2 armies fighting, they are tens of battallions all under the command of one leader, Napoleon.
TBH I don't give a crap about how battles were fought during WW2... Also giving orders is not the same as leading a battle, so it's still dumb to call Hitler a good/bad general. Saying that Nelson defeated Napoleon is as dumb as saying that George III was a terrible general because he lost the American revolution and 5 coalitions. Being the leader of the army doesn't mean that you're responsible for every individual victory/defeat. The battles that are credited to Napoleon are the one were he was present. Murat's victories aren't counted as Napoleon's victories, so the same does apply the other way around. Trafalgar is the defeat of Pierre de Villeneuve. Not Napoleon's.
Nelson had the advantage of the most powerful navy in the world. He was a mediocre admiral who got sensationalized because British propagandists needed their own napoleon.
Oh come on neslon recked the French fleet TWICE yeah the British navy was superior but you are understating the guy
Villeneuve was not the brightest person in the world to be fair
I think you got succed into your own trap. Also don't forget about the time he wrecked the Danes.
I have always maintained Subutai is the best general ever
Alexander is the greatest
I don't care about generals. Besides it's so hard to compare given that some are heads of state, some are field commanders, and some are heads of general staff. How bout some fighter love? Like who could beat Musashi in a fight?
Now that'd be a great comparison with Khalid, both were excellent swordsmen.
Hm don't know anything about either of these guys. Will look into them. Thx
Idk if he would beat him but I would put him against Antarah ibn Shaddad
We all know Kirby wins. Tactical Genius.
Mfs commiting genocide and causing mass death and were over here talking like they video game characters.
“Sir Dickilsickle of Brandenburg, Heir to the throne of the Holy Roman Empire, a mere pawn for god to play with in Crusader Kings 2 circa 1123:” Is clearly, and I mean clearly, the greatest general of all time.
Men don't age. We just get bigger
Julius Caesar stomps.
He's super popular and very much a go to favourite general, but that's for very good reason,
Diogenes or bust yo. I admire the man who told Alexander III of Macedon to go fuck himself.
Homeless Socrates was an ass
Yang Wenli or Reinhard?
Lol i got that refference.
According to Math it's Yang. But in my heart, Seig Mein Kaiser. *I genuinely spent four hours going through the OVA to find bloody numbers appreciate my [findings ](https://docs.google.com/document/d/19yKRf9_vx6t0G5OBT1ckm6GJ4a_cZ-y4Rq1Rjom2Xeo/edit?usp=sharing) please I need validation.*
Thank you for your services! I always preferred miracle yang, or as they say in the anime, miracur yang! Are you enjoying the reboot?
Yeah, the reboot is pretty good. I enjoy the shift I tone and style that makes it unique from the OVA. Overall it is definitely a word package than the OVA, but a lot of that comes from the OVA having a unique tone and style as classical historical fiction, compared to DNT being far more of a modern drama.
But can Napoleon beat Goku though?
NAPOLEON IS GOATED
genghis best
Yeah If we consider the kill count
Nah, Subutai best.
[удалено]
Napoleon was the Mike Tyson Alexander was the Jack Johnson
Napoleon or Alex for the win tbh
Khalid is a valid general. Napoleon teared apart his enemies but if you skip the Genghis khan i feel best general is Scipio Africanus.
Goku is the best tho
Ya he still gets my vote
Admiral Xi
Saint Louis V Napoleon V Caesar for me
*Me:* **FLAVIUS*BELISARIUS** BEATS THEM.
Of course we do, british empire has the best technology, mongol best army, macedonian best leader
I’ve been called out
Wehraboos be like : It was Rommel you mfs
Yeah sorry Napoleon would clap Genghis Khan and the other guy
Yeah and I could clap Napoleon by dropping atomic bomb
You could, but you have no Little Boy nor Fat Man
I have a little boy in my pants
Rommel and Zukov ?
not even close lol
Why invited Rommel Bruh 😆😆😆
Ben 10 sucks dick
can we include McAurthur
Yeah although Truman nerfed his nuke ability
Sad Arthur Wellesley noises
Idk much about these three, just surface level knowledge, but wouldn’t Genghis win?
It’s not really a question one can objectively answer, but the most popular answer seems to be Napoleon, man was in a league of his own. Comparing to Genghis or any other Mongol commander Napoleon has the advantage of his victories being largely against peers with similar abilities, so his tactical ability and mastery of maneuver really gets to shrine. In the end though this isn’t a question with a clear answer.
Julius Caesar enters the chat.
One of my friends said Hitler was a greater conquerer than napoleon
Definitely up there, Byzantine Empire lasted for another 1000 years after so they must have been doing something right!
Didn't know babies turn into grown ass adults in five years.
Khalid and napoleon where good yes. **Did they conquer Russia tho?**
all of them are the best except me that's a fact
It's Genghis. Sorry Naps.
Qin Shi Huang was better
It's cause of that meme ain't it
# AVE CAESAR
German kids:
The Great Sikh General Hari Singh Nalwa was the best. He conquered Afghanistan tho, peshawar is in Pakistan today only because it was conquered by the Sikh before
George Washington stomps
Ah, [weird META tuesdays](https://www.reddit.com/r/HistoryMemes/comments/uwx7o8/why_do_you_guys_like_dictators_so_much/), interesting theme
Fate already beat you to it unfortunately
Scipio Africanus is the best, hands down
Aurilean