Which Leader Would Have Won

If they are alive at the same point in hiatory, then it should be obvious that they would all have the same technology, etc... available to them. Each would have to recruit and rally their own troops.

OP.
I believe the most charismatic person would win. That would be Hitler. Hitler's speeches just made people want to follow him as a leader. That in turn would have given him the largest army.

Napoleon for sure. Alexander had a lot to thank to his dad for the whole army and tactical advantage. Hitler was an ideological idiot. Ghenghis would maybe come close to Napoleon.

Attached: 6C4A65F7-3E4E-41DB-8004-92F564CF2E46.jpg (990x1400, 214K)

Napoleon unironically.

>Hasn't watched Drifters

Khan was effective but too much of a rampage machine. Napoleon made some dumb bets failed to acknowledge the reality. Hitler had early victories but was bad at grand strategy. All of them had delusions of grandeur. Tough call, but I think I'd go with Alexander.

>each lost when their enemies learnt those tactics
Alexander never lost.

>Hitler
Are you retarted or still in school? He was a terrible strategist

Khan. Who would inflict more terror and demoralize the enemy more than him?

Read that in a 5th grader's voice.

Julius Ceaser

Was alexander doing much more than conquering retard tribes after he beat persia?

>putting thought into shitposts

faggot

Hitler had UFOs with death rays, so Hitler

Napoleon was a kike puppet, Alexander the Great was Mecedonian, not greek, hitler is a saint, genghis khan was a plague sent by God to clean Europe

>delusions of grandeur
Those weren't delusions.

Probably napoleon but you really need to give more specifics about what they have to work with.

He’s the only one to have ever conquered Afghanistan. And the Indians were formidable.

His army of horsemen wouldn't be much of a threat against a dug in position of 88's and MG 42's.

Napoleon beats Hitler off the bat gaining control of western europe.
Eastern and southern EU is a tougher fight with battles being won and lost, back and forth. Slowly and then rapidly going in Khans favor with Alexander counter striking at strategic points causing a stale mate resembling trench warfare, a line will be drawn.
This is when Napoleon chooses to attack Khans north western flank but is beaten due to climate and logistical problems, his line is stretched too thin

It comes down to a draw between Napoleon and Genghis Khan. Alexander keeps control of a tiny portion of land the size of greece and Hitler being eradicated completely

Attached: ghnfgc.jpg (1280x720, 48K)

Alexander and Temujin would be close but Alexander already faced a steppe horde during his pushing into India (the Sogdians), so I'm sure he'd be able to adapt to the Mongol's horde tactics.
Napoleon is highly overrated.
Hitler isn't a conquerer but a political leader, while he has military experience he never lead an army.

>delusions of grandeur
>self made emperors

>I'm sure he'd be able to adapt to the Mongol's horde tactics.

But not his brutality. Sorry dude but his army would be demoralized, terrified. Psyops 101, it would be a key factor. Alexanders army was scared shitless when they faced those shit slathered apoos in the loos, just imagine how skid marked their togas would be when they see Genghis's mounds of severed heads

Khan, by a fucking mile.

If Hitler rallied enough troups and conquered in time he wu old win, but thanks to his backstabbing nature and his lack of care for foreign demands (attacking Russia and going through Belgium, angering the british) he would get gang banged by the rest if he took to long

Ghengis Khan hands down. Mongols hardly existed when he was born. He created a people through force of will. He allowed anyone to join, but they had to bend the knee. He created an army and way of life. When he saw a castle, figured he could not break it so he recruited Chinese engineers to defeat castles. He had great generals (Subatai, Batu, Hulagu) that themselves could be considered as the greatest of all time. A people that were pushed aside took Constantinople and kept it.

And Ghengis Khan maybe the most famous cuck in human history. Even at that about .5% of all humans are his direct descendants. No one else is close.

attila

team mongolia received some unpleasant time in hungary. they won, but they suffered too.

Attached: proxy.duckduckgo.com.jpg (605x1024, 368K)

Hitler would win because his nazi soldiers invented tanks while Khan invented only horse riding.BTW im afraid of horses.

Depends on what point in history it is. If it's ancient or medieval times, Genghis wins, no competition. If it's black powder era or modern times, it would be close between Genghis and Napoleon because they're the only real strategists. Alexander only got as far as he did because he inherited everything and Hitler didn't know shit about leading an army. If I had to bet on it though my money would be on Genghis.

Napoleon of course.

this dude know everything about battle and stuff.
the other have just power and money.

Most of Alexanders empire came from Persian satrapies surrendering to Alexander because they didn't like being under the rule of Persia and saw him as a liberator. Only part of his territory actually came from fighting battles, so he IS overrated in a sense, but still no doubt a tactical genius.

Genghis Khan had the deadliest army, no tactics needed, just send 1,000,000 horsemen down upon whoever you're up against and it's over.

This

Based

He lost against Hanibal at Carhae

Perfect bait

The Golden Horde would have conquered all of Europe if Ögadai hadn't drunk himself to death.
>Alcohol literally saved Europe
Really makes ya think!

Napoleon lost to us and the Russians. So no.

Hitler knew nothing about war , khan was just zerg rushing weaker people , Alexander idk , Napoleon is probably your best bet

Clearly Rommel wins, he is actually experienced in modern warfare while everyone else would be busy figuring out what to do.

Attached: 1126c4bc30642100a249d29d5b4e628c-09.jpg (890x890, 327K)

Unfortunately he did make leadership decisions...

>Khan
>Zerg rushing weaker people
>Literally defeated all Empires and technology of his time at the battle field, often outnumbered
You wut?

Actually nevermind literally any military general is better than the 4 options presented

Attached: 1498764115395.jpg (786x864, 199K)

Alexander would have won if we're talking purely about military genius and they were competing on the same technological level.

>Hitler knew nothing about war
>Absolutely embarrassed your country so bad that you won't live it down for centuries

Attached: postthisinresponsetosomethingfunny.jpg (453x500, 184K)

Myth spread by Japanese imagination that we were somehow numerically vast just because those island cunts didn't get their shit together and fought in small warbands.

Alexander is overrated.
Hitler has similarities with Khan, fast attacks and powerful attacks (blitzkrieg).
Napoleon was just lucky. Theres no "brains" when all you have to do is order a heavy cav charge

Khan. He has all the others beat in every single sense.

The Golden Horde curb stomped every single European army sent against them. Seriously, they would have conquered all of us with ease. Now, if they could have held it, is an entirely different question.

80% Genghis 10% Napoleon 9.99% Alexander and 0.01% for Hitler

The huns never crossed the Ukraine plains

Gonna go with Napoleon

The mongols weren't the huns

Probably Genghis tbqh, dude was a mad lad.

Dschinghis for sure

Their ideas and strategies would be different and no longer affective though.
Ghengis had vast armies of cavary, which would be gunned down by modern weaponry etc
what era ? It literally changes the answer. No one leader would win ever era.

You're wrong, what made genghis terrifying wasnt his numbers alone but his tactics. They were pioneers in a lot of tactics. A simple "horde" wouldnt be able to hold territory and have laws

None of them, Julius Caesar was the best conqueror and had to be shut down by inner betrayal.
Caesar would literally let you watch his men build bridges just so they could come kick your ass.

Ghengis Khan was just a petty slaver.
Hitler was a failure
Napoleon was a failure.
Alexander is the only one in a similar league with Caesar.

daily reminder that with modern weaponry none of the people you mentioned would have jack shit against the most green of present day military generals

Napoleon was a military general before being emperor though ?

Idk why you guys think a low IQ mongoloid is a better leader than a war genius who participated in almost every french conflict of his time and had the entire imperial Europe against him

I have never said that, re-read what i wrote, i am telling you that since their tactics only applied in their respective era's they would be a useless and even an impediment rather than a asset for military conquest

> overrated
> took over the known world from Greece to India
>never lost a single battle during his campaign

>no t.fail to destroy England while you have them in your grasp, start a two front war in your most desperate hour, and try to invade Russia in winter and his Gengis Mutt are superior

Attached: Battle-of-Alexander-versus-Darius.jpg (3201x1467, 2.17M)

Alexander didn't have the might of best European army against him, the Prussians, and the might of the British and Russian Empires. Hitler the same with the entire SU, the fucking USA and the British while having rather useless allies. Alexander only had a instable empire against him which was technologically inferior. I still wish Napoleon had been born a German Kaiser. We would rule Europe together with the French today...oh wait.

surely not hitler.
he never won

Salty, salty.

Attached: Good old times.jpg (460x304, 38K)

Genghis would ass blast all of them with concentric rings of over lapping fields of attack

Genghis Khan
Is this even a question?

Napoleon Bonaparte since he's an actual theoretician and frontline commander (sorry Hitler) with historical knowledge of the other two.

Hitler, cuz he had tanks. We all know how well cavalry fared against tanks, no Pooland?

Definitely not Hitler, he couldn't strategize himself out of his own bunker.

Prolly Napoleon as he faced the most actual uphill battles.

Alexander basically just steamrolled everything and bruteforced everything else. Genghis Khan basically won everything by virtue of fighting an insanely splintered region with no dominant military except his own. It's easier to win a thousand battles against minor parties, rather than one battle against an equal force.

>Genghis Khan

>Hitler in the list
Why the fuck you included this looser who shot himself and let his people get raped by commies?

>Leader
not army faggot
but i think can solve this question using pic related

Attached: iq_by_country.png (1357x800, 25K)

Hitler was a shitskin and he didn't repressented the Aryans in any way. He had dark hair, he was virgin with female personality. His regime was opposial to the real Aryan spirit. Real Aryan spirit = Luck and chaos. Hitler's regime = totalitarianism = eliminate all luck and chances.

Fuck off anarchist

>Napoleon lost to germans
no, Napoleon lost after losing almost a million men in the penninsular war and russian winter you tard monger.

No, I am a tribalist
Meaning of swastika = good luck

Attached: swastika.png (287x293, 2K)

expected a fingolian flag, desu

mi nigra

He's probably thinking of Waterloo and the lost Prussian army just showing up at the last minute to finish off the much inexperienced army Napoleon bundled up after he came out of exile.

Napoleon lost to mud dude literal mud his dumb French ass couldn’t wait a day for it to dry

In terms of themselves or with their staff?
If with staff it would go
>Genghis Khan
>Napoleon
>Alexander
>Hitler
In terms of individual ability
>Alexander
>Napoleon
>Genghis Khan
>Hitler

>tfw never see Guderian and Subutai talking about tank tactics together

>Alexander
Great unifier, known to be the best general of all time
>Khan
Onetrick
>Napoleon
He had some useful tricks and read well. Ultimately fell victim to his hubris a few too many times with the grander strategy of his campaigns.
>Hitler
Meglomaniac. Driven and intelligent for sure but his ideology was too fiddly for sustainable success in war.

>wait one day
>instead of focusing on one enemy have to deal with anglos on a hill and fucking prussians, prussians everywhere
Big think here.

Alexander
>Only into victory because of le phlanx and le mercenaries
Genghis Khan
>won because horse niggers with bows and arrows and such
>wouldn't have ever gotten far if niggas was prepared for this fuckery
Hitler
>no tactical genuis what so ever, won those victories because of german economic success and an UNREASONABLE amount of tanks
Napoleon:
>went from low born noble to Emperor
>conquered more than hitler
>economic policy were both fantastic for the time and traditionalist (See: Code Napoleon)
>france had a huge population compared to neighboring countries sure, but Napoleon often won with less soldiers than the enemy had (See: battle of the three emperors)

oh yeah and Napoleon only ever did some immoral shit to some niggers in Haiti whilst trying to get himself a American empire setup, meanwhile, genghis wacked a huge percentage of the worlds population (although comparably moral to his rivals) hitler may or may not have wacked gorillions of polish, and alexander basically tried to nigger all that was and then cried when there were no world left to nigger, and then died and his empire fell apart.

Genghis Khan obviously, highest kill-score of all time.

Theyre all losers but the mongol.

Yeah but Napoleon studied all of Alexanders strategies and he was Napoleon's personal hero, plus Alexander was a ancient general and would have a much harder time learning modern warfare.

i'd put my money on Genghis, unironically. The mongols were batshit insane when it came to warfare, albeit they had some honor in them (by allowing the opponents to surrender before the battle started and by incorporating their elements within the mongol society). Mind you, this is the same god damn people that decided "hey, those guys aren't surrendering, throw some dead animals at them and start a god damn plague".

That last part was unironically how the plague got to Europe, I shit you not.

Genghis Khan through sheer rape/reproduction or Hitler