I'm new to /his/ and I'm wondering
Is there a consensus greatest General of all time?
And how do you separate that out from all the surrounding social, economic, cultural, demographic, etc factors? Napoleon by any objective measure had "bigger" battles than the other two I mentioned, but does that make him a better general? The mongols conquered more land, but you could argue that they didn't face the same caliber of opposition.
Any military endeavor has a whole host of interlinking details, of which generalship is only one of them, and arguably a one of lesser importance. Does your evaluation of Alexander's campaigns change when you remember that Xenophon dealt a huge, heavy blow to the Persians with roughly 1/4-/1/5 of the troops? Should it?
My current phone wallpaper
>motivational as FUCK
Genghis and Khalid ibn Waleed
Only 2 Generals that never lost a battle
I think Subutai wins in this case
>He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. 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.
He lost twice in battles with Mohammad's forces, during the fighting between Mecca and the Muslims.
That doesn't mean he's not an amazing general, just not an undefeated one. In my personal completely subjective list of the greatest commanders of all time, I'd probably rank him #5.
You also have to take into account the scale you're looking at. Many great tacticians are terrible strategic thinkers, and many of the best strategic warfighters do so despite tactical ineptitude.
Take Phyrrus, for example. He was considered by many (including Hannibal) to be among the best generals in history. However, he was absolutely terrible at ruling kingdoms, meaning he was forced to withdraw from most of his campaigns not because of losing battles, but political and strategic factors.
You could actually apply much the same analysis to Hannibal himself: His entire plan against Rome hinged upon the assumption that a decisive defeat of Roman field armies would cause their allies to revolt and give him the sort of base he could use to besiege or assault the city, should that even prove necessary.
>Only 2 Generals that never lost a battle
That's such bullshit though. History is full of generals who never lost battles. Scipio Africanus is my fave general and he never lost a battle.
Khalid ibn al Walid
These are pretty consistently up there.
A few others get often mentioned
Hannibal and Scipio africanus
Guo "chinky name I don't remember"
Caesar>Scipio>Sulla>Pompey>Belesarius>Agrippa>Marius>Germanicus>>>>shit>>> Mark Antony
Patton isn't as bad because he doesn't have the Wehraboo allure to him. Circlejerking over Rommel is a sure sign that the someone has no understanding of WW2 beyond the very basic pop-history
Two words: George Washington
Watching deadliest warrior napolean vs washington is really retarded. They have this huge american circlejerk going on. I can't fucking watch american documentaries because their accent is fucking annoying, and they have to make good tv and not good information over there - as in they prefer making shit that makes them more money.
>Better than Sulla, who in turn is better than everyone else
>not even naming the objectively best German general
Because his conquests were about 90% confined to the Persian Empire, which was a paper tiger. Furthermore, both his army and a lot of his tactics weren't his, Phillip came up with them. Alexander's main contributions were in the pursuit, not the main phase of battle.
Alexander wins the top spot, OP. Simply for the reason that literally every general that came after him studied his works and tactics afterwards.
Nobody prior to alex earned as much renown as he did
The answer is Stormin Norman Schwarzkopf
First of all. You say that like the persian Empire wasn't the largest at the time, and that doesn't count the large amount of Asia he took in the brief amount of time the Earth was blessed with his presence.
In terms of his military tactics. As you have never specified i'm going to assume you meant his father, who died before any of the conquests took place.
Bullshit. Caesers good. But I'm gonna need more than a vote of confidance to convince me he could just stroll into a continent he was unaware of with his troops out numbered and outgunned and turn shit around. While he was a master of phalanx and flanking, there is now way the American people of the time could stand up the the super power of the time that way.
In conclusion, Caesar would be out of his element in every way.
Caesar wasn't just a master of roman warfare, he was a master of everything he put his hand at, be it personal, political or military gambit, charisma, etc.
He could probably just convince britain that they shouldn't even bother, cause Caesar was a god on earth.
>Don't think Wellington did either, but I could be mistaken.
Dude, he lost tons of them, why do you think it took him 6 years to take Spain (a secondary theater)?
Here are some of his worst
that is pure speculation based on his natural learning prowess. I agree Caesar was an impressive intellectual, but that dosen't change the fact that he would have no idea what the hell was going on.
Not really, there is documentation of some of his personal exploits.
Like how he lured pirates into taking a higher ransom on him so he could get more booty, since he was assured the rights to lead the military retribution. then used that money to fund his political career.