Who is the greatest general for you?
For me it's Peshwa Baji Rao I who won EVERY SINGLE BATTLE he ever fought, many times against overwhelming odds and destroyed the Mughal Empire.
I must admit though my opinion is biased and there are many others as good as him if not better.
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Subutai. He was Genghis Khan's greatest general and is the reason why all white people today are asian rapebabies
I agree, easily one of the best ever. Very underrated too.
The guy who boiled people alive, no?
For me it's Napoleon. The battle of Austerlitz is what does it for me.
Gao Changgong. He also never lost a battle. They sing this song in his glory
youtube.com
Belisarius. Brought the (Eastern) Roman Empire back from the brink of destruction and reconquered almost all of the land they had lost to the barbarians in the past centuries, while staying true to his country and emperor. Most other Roman generals of his caliber would've seized power for themselves, plunging their country into civil war.
POO
IN
Tough one. Though I would name the greatest and latest minds of maneuver warfaee, namely Patton, Zhukov, and Guderian. More historically, Napoleon.
There are many overrated figures in history however, like Alexander.
Sun tzu for sure
LOO
Nobody Poo general.
Totally irrelevant outside of his country.
Hannibal. Every single general ever since has been sucking him off and trying to recreate Cannae.
who the fuck is that?
Khan raped most of the world and made muslims eat pork.
Alexander gets overhyped because he was a fantastic tactical general, but he literally inherited the greatest army at the time his father created. But Alexander was smart and brave af. Charging the Persian king of kings personally on the field of battle, using cavalry without stirrups, that's some ballsy moves. But the Khan is truly one of the greatest logistical generals of all time
A poo and goatfucker sucking each other off. If your generals are so great why are your countries a shithole today?
Probably not the best ever but I really like Quintus Fabius Maximus Verrucosus
OP here, i previously stated Baji Rao I is the best and in Indian history he is.
But if i had to be objective and decide, Napoleon is the greatest.
Shapur I
The Desert Fox
True. Bajiro was the greatest general.
>homogenous population
>beautiful mountains and nature
thank goodness I live half the world away from your shit country
No one ever mentions Agrippa, but it's crazy what he accomplished at a young age. Augustus would have been a historical footnote if it wasn't for Agrippa.
What country are you from, i don't recognise your flag?
It's a meme flag
Not really, the damage that Baji Rao caused to the Mughal Empire eventually led to the end of the empire and paved the way for the British to take over. If not for Baji Rao's efforts, there is a very good chance the Mughal Empire would still exist today. So he is quite relevant.
>Alexander gets overhyped because he was a fantastic tactical general
He clearly showed strategical ability as well, because he was able to make significant progress from each victory and managed to string all his victories perfectly together.
>but he literally inherited the greatest army at the time his father created
Literally irrelevant, he helped his father create that army and changed it by adding new troops along his campaigns.
>But the Khan is truly one of the greatest logistical generals of all time
Perhaps, but you can't underestimate Alexanders' logistical ability either. The fucker marched an army from Greece to India on foot, making revolutionary use of the navy for logistics and the Gedrosian march would´ve ended in disaster under any lesser general (like it did for Cyrus the Great).
Your countryman The Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesly has said the Marathas of India were better than the French under Napoleon.
He fought and defeated both so i guess he knows best.
What would you say to that?
Not bad, anons. But for me, it was the Duke of Wellington: first, he was hugely successful in India, before conducting a quite incredible campaign against vastly numerical French forces in Portugal and Spain, eventually kicking them out and invading France from the south. Then, of course, he beat Napoleon at Waterloo.
That he was probably trying to insult the French. I'd also like to see a source on that because unlike with the French Wellington didn't need allies to conquer the Indians so it seems unlikely to me.
Speaking of which, Horatio Nelson and Wellesly, the architects of Waterloo, are definitely superior to Napoleon.
Napoleon gets points for a conqueror, but those 2 generals could easily have done it as well if they were in napo's shoes.
And if the British didn't take over the pajeets would all still be in India. Fuck Baji rao in his gay face
Duke of Wellington is over rated by such a breath taking amount. The Russians broke Napoleon's army and Wellington managed to hold on for his life against a hastily assembled mob of soldiers during Napoleon's return. Never would have been able to handle the Grand Armee at full strength. When the Grand Armee was flourishing a single corp under Davout was smiting half the Prussian army. The 100 days army wasn't trained or drilled, units were just cobbled together at random.
the witchfinder general
who?
That Czech guy who led his armies to battle even though he himself was blind.
Based my choice on badassness.
>(You)ing your own posts to complete a joke
that's pitiful user
Do mudshits forget that mongels buttraped every single muslim state or empire at that time? Baghdad?
kek
good stay away
Brits didnt like frenchies you poo, hes not gonna praise them
Suvorov.
Literally fucking who, lmoaing at you pajeet believing that your history is somehow relevant
Skanderbeg
this
Came here to post this.
Subutai was the GOAT.
>lmoaing
Neither is Italian history outside of 300 BC- 500 AD, 1915-1918 and 1940-1945.
Alexander isn't overrated, but Philip is extremely underrated.
thats still more than any poo/shitskin history you shitskin, show flag before you talk shit coward
"Soldiers generally win battles, generals get credit for them." -Napoleon I
>best general
>needing to fight battles
Yea nah
I'm not claiming GOAT, but Vo Nguyen Giap deserves a mention in any discussion on great generals.
Defeated the world's mightiest, most technologically advanced military super power, armed with only bamboo.
Claudius, following the Greek history of Acilius, reports that Publius Africanus was a member of that embassy and that at Ephesus he conferred with Hannibal, and he even relates one conversation: when Africanus asked who, in Hannibal's opinion, was the greatest general, Hannibal named Alexander, the king of the Macedonians, because with a small force he had routed armies innumerable and because he had traversed the most distant regions, even to see which transcended human hopes. To the next request, as to whom he would rank second, Hannibal selected Pyrrhus; saying that he had been the first to teach the art of castrametation; besides, no one had chosen his ground or placed his troops more discriminatingly; he possessed also the art of winning men over to him, so that the Italian peoples preferred the lordship of a foreign king to that of the Roman people, so long the master in that land. When he continued, asking whom Hannibal considered third, he named himself without hesitation. Then Scipio broke into a laugh and said, “What would you say if you had defeated me?” “Then, beyond doubt,” he replied, “I should place myself both before Alexander and before Pyrrhus and before all other generals.” Both this response, with the unexpected turn given it by Punic cleverness, and this unlooked-for kind of flattery, he says, stirred Scipio deeply, because Hannibal had segregated him from all other commanders as one beyond estimation
Michael Collins
>Impoverished shithole ireland fights a war against the greatest world power on its doorstep and wins.
Baldwin IV of Jerusalem
>Literally half dead and still whoops the invading saracens asses with the help of god.
The Duke of Luxembourg?
>Lucky against the Vandals
>Narses was equally smart against the Ostrogths
What makes this cuck outstanding?
Chuikov in Stalingrand
Pic related for me because he eternalized the memory of Constantinople.
It'll be reconquered one day. Its emperor fought valiantly for this glorious city, proving that it was worth defending to the very last breathe.
Jackson
True Philip is super underrated and you know Alexander started having issues once his commanders who served his father started to feel alienated. Generals rely heavily on commanders to relay orders and to help lead the men sometimes from the front.
He destroyed a Muslim Empire, pretty much single-handedly, based on being charismatic and brilliant.
Post your grades from fourth grade study period so we can compare you two.
:/
Well, there are many intelligent and capable people living in poverty and misery and then there is stacy, who can have everything while offering nothing.
Life is unjust like that.
>He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart.
Yeah he was insanely good at what he did
The real Shekelstein Nakamoto
Kike education
Hannibal was tremendous. Scipio was also a good general but he did have the near limitless will power of Rome behind him. Rome was one of the few major powers to be able to lose multiple entire armies of 50k+ and still have the stomach to fight and not sue for peace. Attrition is what defeated Hannibal.
Napoleon Bonaparte
Alexander The Great is a close second cause he also won every battle he ever fought and destroyed the Persian Empire
>once his commanders who served his father started to feel alienated.
And he dealt with it successfully.
Any conqueror encounters issues. The issues aren't the issue, the issue is how they are dealt with, and Alexander didn't lose once.
I'm a retard and forgot the picture
Cmon burguer, you can't be THAT ignorant. Saying that India has no history....burguer education indeed
Napoleon. So good only his own hubris could defeat him.
His entire death is very suspect is it not? Don't get me wrong Alexander was truly great but theres a good case to be made for Hannibal wrecking his shit
The Great Khan invaded Russia during the winter and won....
Crassus Parthia was the best fucking general, prove me wrong.
Patton. His writings explain exactly why he is such a badass motherfucker. The dude was also an upstanding man who, in his free time, would write poetry. He's my type of person to lookup to.
Im proud to have mongolian blood. Are you proud to be an asian rapebaby, huwiteboi?
At least your retarded opinion is consistent with your retarded flag. In Wellingtons own words Napoleon was the greatest. And Wellington would lose badly at Waterloo if Prussians hadnt saved his ass
You mean Istanbul?
Got his ass frozen and army starving to death in the middle of russian nowhere. While Ivans sat and watched. Then lost Battle of Leipzig to a bunch of germans and swedes
Ok, but could he also poo in a loo?
John the Blind of Bohemia, Count of Luxembourg, King of Bohemia and titular King of Poland.
Died whilst fighting even though he was blind.
Absolute madman.
john of bohemia ?
>What is the Roman Republic?
>What is the Renaissance?
>What are Venice and Genoa?
>What is the Papacy and the Vatican city?
Quality thread lads.
Unlike Narses he had not been snipped though
Gotta go with a self-made man who started with nothing:
en.wikipedia.org
Poojeet
EDWIN FUCKING ROMMEL
Michiel de Ruyter, Admiral of the Dutch Navy.
Undefeated in battle, started the first ever Marine Corps, led the Raid on the Medway burning down the English fleet, only died on a (((suicide mission))) from a cannonball to the body.
Also oversaw the development of what was a puny navy into the world's most powerful force.
Pol’s thoughts on Lord Nelson?
>Quinty Fabulous Maximus Verruca
ET TU, BRUTAL COCK
Bharata
Mahapadmananda
Chandragupta Maurya
Bindusara Maurya
Ashoka Maurya
Vikramaditya
Skandagupta
Shivaji
Rajraja chola
Vikrama chola
Makenshaw
And that tail dude I can't remember almost defeated the British before having a heart attack
Is the standard never losing a battle?
>largest impact on the evolution of warfare
Alexander did pretty gud
also
*tamil
>Gajah Mada
>swears to never taste spice until he controls the entirety of indonesia
>breaks all great empires around him
>rules empire from behind the curtain
>so powerful he could slaughter a king in bright daylight without anyone doing shit
alexander the great
julius caesar (had 1 non-victory)
suvorov
they have won enormous amount of battles against stronger enemis (in numbers and firepower)
Wellington was a competent general but certainly not a great. His brother was arguably more successful since his conquests in India were performed with fewer troops and resources and actually amounted to more land and manpower being conquered than Napoleon ever did.
Personally I'd say Napoleon at Austerlitz and during the Italian campaign shows a level of consistent brilliance you won't really find in other generals throughout history. However, in terms of overall success I'd say Moltke the elder or Emperor Aurelian would be the best military leaders as a whole.