who is history's most successful military commander?

Subutai or Alexander

Probably Alexander.

>>504576
Hannibal. Won every battle and lost only one.

>>504591
>Won every battle and lost only one.
Retype that

>>504591
Alexander didn't lose a single one and won his war.

>>504590
>>504587

>>504587
>>504590
>>504609
This

>>504609
So did Zachary Taylor, what's your point?

>>504616
Or Winfield Scott for that matter.

>>504612
No

>>504576
Pizarro or Cortes

>>504590
Thread is over

>>504682
No it isn't.

A successful military commander is one that achieves his goals, how many battles he won or lost doesn't matter as much as Alexanderfags would have you believe.

Yes, Alexander met his goals, or some of them, but so did plenty of other people.

>>504710
So, who would you consider? Above Alexander I mean.

File: Garibaldi_divise.jpg (609KB, 1000x710px) Image search: [Google]

609KB, 1000x710px

>>504576
Let's rephrase the question
Who are history's most succesful military commanders for each type of warfare?

>>504710

Agreed, but in the case of this thread, the person with the most spectacular or high-profile fulfillment of their goals is going to be the winner

ergo it's Alexander or Sutubai

>>504720
This thread already has two general mentioned that never lost a battle and met their goals, if that's the only requirement then you must concede them to be on the same level as Alexander.

>>504720
>>504736

What about Alexander Nevsky?

>>504576
Not Subutai. Subutai had superior mobility, superior military technology, and could always retreat. While his victories were astonishing if you compare the numbers alone, they were pretty simple considering the mongolian superiority in horse archers and heavy cav. Most importantly, Genghis Khan had nothing to lose in his offensive wars.

Alexander or Frederick i the answer. Both had inferior military technology, both gambled their lives and kingdoms in their campaigns, and both won impossible battles.

Khalid Ibn Waleed.

From an arabian desert tribe of Quraysh, to invading the Byzantine + Persian Empires. I don't know if he's the "best" pound for pound, but he's most definitely patrician level.

>>504793
>Inferior military technology

Alexander was gifted his father's beastly army. It was hardly inferior for its time.

>>504609
I'm not the Hannibal guy.
Alexander fought how many battles?
3? 4? The rest were sieges sieges sieges sieges because that's how warfare looked like back then.

For similar example see Wilhelm the Conqueror who fought(and won) in Hastings but other than that? Sieges sieges sieges, no battles.
Richard the Lionheart didn't fought in ANY battle, it was all about sieges sieges sieges sieges.

Were they the most successful leaders by that margin? They've never lost any battle either.

>>506885
Assaulting fortefied locations are some of the most difficult battles for a commander to win.

>>506901
For Wilhelm and Lionheart it was more about making his soldiers NOT desert when waiting for defenders to surrender.
Alexander had some really impressive assaults, that's true, but again, lots of the times the enemy simply surrendered.

My point is that saying "oh this guy won all the battles he's a MLG pro general" in times when battles were rare is dumb.
Suvorov for instance fought numerous battles and won all of them so for him it's more logical metric.
But then again the good general is as >>504710
said - a guy who achieves his goals, not the guy who won many battles.

Phyrrus is the example of completely dogshit commander because sure - he won battles, but he won them in a way that made it impossible to use it in any sensible way.

Then you have late-modern era with people like Clausewitz who sure, were military commander but were they winning some battles? They've planned entire campaigns and only watched them being executed, how will they place on that "huh, won many battles = good, lost many = bad" ranking?

if you count the number of people and the use of technology probably Mao Zedong

>>506953
Should we really consider Phyrrus dogshit because his victories were costly? I think denying his ability as a commander simply because he faced off against a capable foe is silly.

>>504723

Napoleon has an entire archetype named after him.

>>506885
Alexander fought battles in Greece before his Persian campaign, which is the campaign he fought around 3-4, he also had fights in India too though

Who is the most underrated military leader in history? Hannibals father Hamilcar was pretty great, his conquest of Iberia could have rivaled Caesars conquest of Gaul

>>506885

Alexander fought over a dozen battles, and near a hundred skirmishes, and nearly 10 sieges, and at least one naval landing

>>507508
Khalid ibn al-Walid.

>>507512
Everybody who knows anything about Military knows of Khalid though, they just don't bring him up cause he's a Muslim, Hamilcar is literally never mentioned

File: KBW.jpg (438KB, 1915x1080px) Image search: [Google]

438KB, 1915x1080px

>>504576
Chinggis Khan, surely? Most successful? He conquered the most land, slaughtered the most people, brought an unprecedented amount of territory in the civilized world under his command, and left it stable for a few generations to come. I don't think you can really argue here, if you want your question answered literally.

Shout-out to Saifullah, though.

>>507519
Subutai conquered the most land

File: pxxrantioch.jpg (128KB, 500x364px) Image search: [Google]

128KB, 500x364px

Why theres still the meme of underrating Alexander?

>>507530
His father was better desu

File: Screenshot_2015-12-24-18-30-56.png (307KB, 1440x2560px) Image search: [Google]

307KB, 1440x2560px

>>507508
Sulla. Also Sulla is answer to OP.

>>507563
Those numbers are taken from Sulla though senpai

File: Skärmavbild 2016-01-03 kl. 14.52.39.png (85KB, 318x662px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 318x662px

Gustavus Adolphus Magnus

>>506798

Granted Philip needs to receive credit for building the Macedonian army into a fear-inducing machine, but even under his leadership, it never reached the efficiency as it did under Alexander. Philip did taste defeat a few times, and abandoned at least one siege. He was hesitant of incorporating different elements into his army (although he did give a large role to the cavalry).
We see his best generals making mistakes and giving wrongful advice, under Alexander, with Parmenion risking the entire campaign twice!.

Not only did Alexander manage to introduce several new concepts and troops into his army, he did so very successfully, so that there were egyptians fighting in afghanistan, and phoenicians sailing into the Indian Ocean, and steepe scythians riding in the dense indian jungle.

>>507571
B A S E D
A S E D B
S E D B A
E D B A S
D B A S E

>>507585
the roman cavalry attacked 7 times
it had to retreat 7 times

Sun Tzu

>>507615
>

>>504576
Admiral Yi

>>507569
>not believing the Dictator
What are you, a non-noble pleb?

Ibn Waleed

>>507523
He worked for Genghis though. Even so, he was a beast.

>>507626
Just imagine what he could've done if Korea hadn't fucked him over at every turn.

>>504587

came here to post Subutai

dude was on another plane of existence

>>507571
Lejonet från Norden.

>>504781
not even in the top ten of Russian military commanders.

why is Subutai the only Mongol general ever praised? He was only one of Genghis Khan's great generals

Viriatus

AS a massive turkaboo,
i think our usual dudes get a good rep but the navy guys dont. Bear with me.
i always get tears in my eyes when i read about barbaros, Turgut, piale pasha or oruc Reis just broing it up, raiding Islands, conquering the mediterranean, fighting heavily fortified Knights order towns...

Its kinda romantic reallY

>>507571
>outnumber the enemy
>glorious victory

>>507571
He's definitely one of the most underrated and one of the greatest