Who did it best? Who did it worst?

Who did it best? Who did it worst?

Objective truth:

1. Genghis Khan (by a country mile)
2. Alexander the Great
3. Cyrus the Great
4. Napoleon
5. Julius Caesar
6. Charlemagne
7. Hitler

By the way, Timur would be number 2 on this list easily.

fpbp lets all go home

The blank

/thread

Why including Charlemagne and Hitler when they never commanded an army in their life

i think napoleleon accelerate the change of the end os medieval times let burguese surge as new class and put in the mirror the incopetence of the monarchies to adapt to new times,
genghis khan alexander are 2 tier if you compare with the change that napoleon conquer brought to us

You retard, in the late stages of the war Hitler was commanding many armies by himself (that's one of the major reasons he lost)

They were pretty much all authoritarian, genocidal dictators and shit-tier

Pic related did it best

Not on the battlefield, that's what I meant
Can't really compare one who used to lead his armies at the head like Alexander with armchair wannabe strategists like them

this tbqh

and spanish conqustador pizarro and cortes should be on the list

battlefield commanding is really just a meme, that can't happen in the modern world

My grandfather fought side by side with Aleksandar and he told me that he was the best ever.
However he was gay...so idk I'm conflicted about him.

subutai

A racist & a slave owner. He was already authoritarian in the micro-society that was his property; the only reason he couldn't do the same thing to your country is because he was too weak.

Swap Napoleon and Caesar and you have a deal.

Though these are not from the contemporary world
At Hitler's time it was most important; at Charlemagne's time much less, at least in Europe

>yfw you realize Pizarro was literally Cortes' dumb cousin

what

You didn't know about Alessandro Magno's sexuality?
Ohh

all of these men were gaels except hitler

Genghis Khan,he had the biggest "empire".
and he also left a trace of it by leaving his genetics over the whole place

I know he was a giant poof but what about your grandfather, he’s like 2000

Alexander should be first

>he's not a reptilian

>Charlemagne
Most of people don't even know what he had done. And he literally do nothing relevant.

Alexander is not even fit to stand in Genghis' shade, macaque.

My grandfather wasn't a poof that's what I can tell you. He died like a man in 2001.

When they fought the Persians some of the soldiers were captured and sadly my grandpa was one of them.
The Persians told them "You have three options:
a) join our army
b) anal sex and you are free
c) we'll kill you"
My grandpa was a honorable man, so he chose to be killed. They killed a big MAN that day!
True story, he told it to me personally.

This is some advanced level retardation.

His son Ögedei was miles better than Temujin though

My ancestors :)

amazing post, I’m blessed

t. Underages

In terms of impact I'd say something like this.
>Caesar
>Napoleon
>Charlemagne
>Alexander
>Cyrus
>Hitler
>Genghis

Caesar ahead of the bunch because he is THE defining Roman figure and Rome THE defnining Roman civilization. He came to define what it means to be a statesman and through his conquest of Gaul and rule over Rome (de fact founding the empire) would come to greatly shape human history.

Napoleon can easily be considered one of the chief architects of modern Europe. Between creating some of the revolution's most enduring institutions (during his time as consul mostly), spreading constitutionalism by swordpoint, creating and spreading the most influential non-Roman legal code in history and revolutionizing (no pun intended) statecraft he's a worthy second. Second, because he also borrowed a lot from Caesar and Augustus (only emphasizing why Caesar deserves to be first).

Charlemagne is in third place because he's the grandfather of Europe. Compared to Cyrus and Alexander his military achievements are less impressive, and he too just wanted to copy Caesar/Augustus, but in the end he created Germany and France. Ergo he created Europe and the conflicts that would come to define it.

Alexander and Cyrus were difficult. If I look at the two as objective rulers, Alexander merely destroyed what Cyrus built up and is the inferior statesman. However, Alexander did allow the process of Hellenization to happen, which greatly impacted Rome, the Levant and the Near East all the way to the Indus. Hellenism would come to define the classical era.

Genghis and Hitler are just guys who conquered a lot. Purely by his own merit Hitler should be at the bottom, demonstrating no clear sign of political or military genius. However, going purely by influence Hitler did destroy Europe by breaking its spine and collectively making the white race ashamed of existing. Historians will probably consider him the beginning of the end for the West.

Lucky trips don't lie

Genghis Khan will always be number 1

Seems about right

t. Ogedei

Genghis Khan. Hopefully someone will take his place in the near future.

you severely underestimate caesar while having people who got lucky once in great battles lmao

Indeed

Caesar wasn't a great conquerer like the rest of my list

you rank them as generals, caesar was obviously a great general, he outskilled stronger opponents time upon time across many theatres of war

And the best thing Caesar is known for is for a fucking salad

You are joking right? Caesar was a decent general but nowhere close to the other generals and conquerers on my list

You are wrong.

>ranking Atatürk over Caesar because of one meme battle

t. t*rk

You forgot Stalin

Very well mister smarty pants, show me a battle where Caesar ONLY was leading the armies to a decisive victory. Also look up Mustafa Kemals military history, it is quite impressive.

>show me a battle where Caesar ONLY was leading the armies
do you even know the structure of roman armies?

exactly. Noone of Caesars success could be directed towards him, besides he didn't conquer shit either

He also underestimates how much it takes to do logicstics, manage resources, grand strategy. All the things that don't happen directly on the battlefield. Caesar was brilliant at that, despite being behind enemy lines for most of his time in Gaul.

>Noone of Caesars success could be directed towards him
Let me rephrase the Dane's question: do you even know how a basic chian of command works? Caesar had excellent subordinates like Marc Anthony, but do you really think that just because Marc Anthony distinguished himself during Alesia, it was any less Caesar's victory?
>besides he didn't conquer shit either
What is Gaul, you dumb piece of shit?

>the complex strategies of Alesia and Pharsalus were randomly conjured and executed by various centurions
You play too many videogames if you think the general single-handedly micromanages any army ever. The overall tactics are credit to him, and you are retarded if you can't see how revolutionary and impressive they were since he continually outsmarted his opponents and won against the odds.

I'm not saying that he is a garbage general I'm saying that he is not comparable to the other generals on my list.

>being this much of a napoleonboo
he was a stat padder

>all these turkish nonames
Reeks of t*rk diaspora.

I can think of few men who accomplished more than Caesar in the entire history of the world, and the odds were so stacked against him, he pulled off miracle after miracle. Someone like Ataturk or Patton were never the underdog or dealt a shit hand like Caesar was on numerous occasions

Look buddy, I am not saying that Caesar is irrelevant or garbage or shit, he is a decent general with a few noteable conquests, but he is not comparable to the likes of Timur, Subutai or Napoleon who had literally no chance of winning yet did overwhelming feats that led to the destruction of entire Empires because of their conquests.

Read you history, turkic generals were amongst the greatest generals to ever exist, and I'm objective here. Baibars, Temür, Subutai, Alp Arslan etc. Look up their conquests