>>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.
>>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.
>>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?
>>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.
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.
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...
All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective parties. Images uploaded are the responsibility of the Poster. Comments are owned by the Poster.
This is a 4chan archive - all of the shown content originated from that site. This means that 4Archive shows their content, archived. If you need information for a Poster - contact them.
If a post contains personal/copyrighted/illegal content, then use the post's [Report] link! If a post is not removed within 24h contact me at firstname.lastname@example.org with the post's information.