Who is history's greatest General?

Me.

>>2656395
Well, you can't really compare ancient history military with modern military, it's just too different and complex.
When it comes to modern history personally i'd give it to Manstein

File: lee.jpg (26KB, 372x450px) Image search: [Google]

26KB, 372x450px

I'm a northerner but I respect the Lee

>>2656552
Can you give us a summary of his major accomplishments? I don't know much about American history

>>2656395
Rommel isn't even Nazi Germany's greatest general.

>>2656589
He is certainly the most celebrated.

>>2656611
Because wehraboos get to celebrate him without being called nazis since Rommel has that image of not actually being a nazi for some reason.

Hannibal Barca is the easy answer.

>>2656586
Defeated really shitty generals. Sherman absolutely btfo'd the south so he was essentially just extending the war.

>>2656626

Show it up your Africanus, Carthage rat!

>>2656688
I think you meant *shove. ;)

File: Screenshot_20170404-122954.jpg (488KB, 1433x1720px) Image search: [Google]

488KB, 1433x1720px

>>2656395
Everytime I see Rommel i post this

File: IMG_1718.png (73KB, 413x727px) Image search: [Google]

73KB, 413x727px

Listen to wise japanon

>>2656709
I'd never heard of Subutai before reading this post, but it seems pretty solid.
No Emperor Babar though?

>>2656707
He was on the losing side of a war. I could bring up Napoleons defeats too but people say he is one of the greatest. One battle means shit.

>>2656743
People mistakenly think Genghis Khan is the reason for the Mongol expansion but it was mostly through Subutai.

>>2656709
Insanely solid list.

>>2656626
Not even the best of his contemporaries

>>2656762
Go ahead and name me a more successful battle than Trasimene or Cannae

>>2656709
Its way too easy to discount Wehrmact generals because so many of them are top tier and their side ultimately lost, but otherwise, very wise indeed.

>>2656709
>japanon
Gee no wonder why the korean admiral is not there

>>2656802
Because he is an admiral not a general?

>>2656751
Still was a massive fuck up

>>2656621
>gets bullied into suicide by hitler
>still nazi XD

>>2656826
>Volunteer to command Hitler's bodyguard on foreign travel every chance he gets
>Shoots propaganda films for the Nazis after the fall of france
>Not a nazi

>>2656837
>hurr durr every geman soldier was a nazi

>>2656837
A good portion of the Wehrmacht was clean.

>>2656841
>>2656850

Not every German or soldier was a Nazi. Rommel definitely was a Nazi however.

File: battleofgazala.png (100KB, 324x774px) Image search: [Google]

100KB, 324x774px

>>2656707
Let's put that into context, shall we? Instead of none?

Or can I just post this operation that was a resounding success, that that battle was a smaller part of, with a similar lack of context, and call you a faggot fruitcake?

Rommel isn't some Jesus of the battlefield but this is just low effort shitposting.

>>2656632
Sherman didn't do shit but fight empty houses. Lee was defeated in Virginia by Grant due to manpower issues.

>>2656395
pic not even remotely related

>>2657254
>There were no CSA troops involved in the Atlanta Campaign.
My god Dixieboos are retarded.

Sulla. Never lost a battle, never lost q war, always in control.

>>2657281
Only to you revisionists. There is a reason he became a house hold name.

>>2657287
It's no more hyperbolic than saying Lee only fought shit generals. Calm down, there were barely any Confederate forces in Sherman's way by the time he got to Atlanta.

>>2657362
He was actually slightly outnumbered when he took the city, you goddamn retard.

Not to mention that he put roughly half of the Army of the Tennessee out of commission fighting his way to Atlanta, and it started the campaign at slightly over 60,000 men, which puts it on par with the Army of Northern Virginia.

>>2657373
Are you seriously defending war crimes?

>>2657362
>It's no more hyperbolic than saying Lee only fought shit generals.

Yes, it is, because saying Lee only fought shit generals prior to 1863 is objectively true. He got BTFO when he got matched against good generals (i.e. Meade and Grant, who both inflicted on him more casualties than they took) despite later having the advantage of being on the strategic defensive with interior lines and ideal terrain in the era of trench warfare.

>>2657399
>"there were no southern troops opposing Sherman!"
>get proven wrong
>"b-but Sherman was really mean!"

Leeaboos are subhumans.

>>2656709
/thread.

File: Do it again Unlce Billy.jpg (32KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

32KB, 400x400px

>>2657362
Are you kidding me? Sherman basically kicked the Shit out of the Army of Tennessee. That's what allowed him to go full total war on the south.


>>2657399
>muh War crimes

The South deserved everything they got

>>2657373
>He was actually slightly outnumbered when he took the city, you goddamn retard.

No he wasn't, are you counting civilians or something?

>Not to mention that he put roughly half of the Army of the Tennessee out of commission fighting his way to Atlanta

Army of the Tennessee was union. Sherman barely even fought battles with Johnston hoping to just flank him with his larger force instead.

>60,000 men, which puts it on par with the Army of Northern Virginia.

So? He wasn't fighting Lee.

>>2657444
>Stealing ww2 memes

Didnt Sherman get relieved of his command for having a mental breakdowns in Kentucky? Good thing his brother was a congressman and found a way to get him a cushy job shadowing Grant.

File: lol nazis.jpg (469KB, 1530x1127px) Image search: [Google]

469KB, 1530x1127px

>>2656779
Wehraboo go home

>Muh Wehrmacht
>So great, we won't even need supply lines in Russia

File: CkSVUVT.png (142KB, 547x484px) Image search: [Google]

142KB, 547x484px

>>2656395
Children admire Erwin Rommel; Men revere Paul von Lettow-Vorbeck... if they can get past his 19th centry style racism. Still, as the only undefeated General in WWI and probably the only man to tell Der Fuerher to "fuck yourself" and live, you probably can't be more based than "the Lion of Africa"

Read more about him on Wiki or

http://www.ntz.info/gen/n01221.html

>>2657453
He requested to be removed but came back under a lesser command under Grant.

>>2657445
>No he wasn't, are you counting civilians or something?
Dixieboo wrong again!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atlanta

>Army of the Tennessee was union.
Wrong again! https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Tennessee

> Sherman barely even fought battles with Johnston hoping to just flank him with his larger force instead.
And then Johnson got dismissed and Hood took over, and well, lots of CSA guys died.

>So?
So your claim, bakc in post>>2657362 that
>Calm down, there were barely any Confederate forces in Sherman's way by the time he got to Atlanta.
Is like the rest of your post, objectively wrong.

>>2657410
>Meade and Grant, who both inflicted on him more casualties than they took

Lee didn't lose more men than Grant at cold harbor, wilderness, and Spotsylvania? Tell me where did all these magical CSA casualties happened?

>>2657465
>Dixieboo wrong again!
>https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Atlanta

The footnote next to that number directly contradicts it by saying a far larger number. Also you just said Sherman had 60,000 initial troops, how the fuck did he lose 25,000 men in two months?

>Wrong again! >https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_Tennessee

Lol, you're embarrassing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Tennessee

>And then Johnson got dismissed and Hood took over, and well, lots of CSA guys died.

Hood evacuated Atlanta and went full retard against Thomas in Nashville.

>>2657470
>Tell me where did all these magical CSA casualties happened?

Appomattox Campaign, the end result of all Grant's maneuvering. 50,000 men became casualties, mostly POWs, 36,000 of whom were taken at the Courthouse and Sailor's Creek.

>>2657534
>Counting the surrender as casualties

Well I guess it's technically true. Grant still lost a lot more men than Lee is actual battle though.

>>2657516

>The footnote next to that number directly contradicts it by saying a far larger number.

> Livermore (p. 122-123, 142) cites values of Union troops as 34,863 present for duty and 30,477 effective, and Confederate troops as 40,438 present for duty and 36,934 effective. Bodart (1908) (p. 538) gives the strength of the Union forces as circa 70,000 and the Confederate forces as circa 40,000.

Not being able to read German, I can't really speak to why Bodart came to the conclusion he did, but Livermore is talking about the troops actually committed to the battle. https://books.google.com/books?id=jthCAAAAIAAJ&pg=PA141&source=gbs_toc_r&cad=4#v=onepage&q&f=false

>. Also you just said Sherman had 60,000 initial troops, how the fuck did he lose 25,000 men in two months?
Actually, I didn't, I said the Army of the Tennesee (the CSA one) had 60,000 men. Most of them would have been deployed elsewhere.

>Lol, you're embarrassing https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Army_of_the_Tennessee

Yes, both armies were called Army of the Tennesee. It even says in the wiki article you just cited.

> It should not be confused with the similarly named Army of Tennessee, a Confederate army named after the State of Tennessee.

>Hood evacuated Atlanta and went full retard against Thomas in Nashville.
After getting outmaneuvered, roughly 1/8 of his army killed or wounded, and this is of course, well before Nashville. In any case, it's not relevant. CSA had troops in the Atlanta campaign, quite a few of them. But keep shifting those goalposts, I'm not going to be responding further to your idiocy.

>>2657546
Why wouldn't we count POWs casualties exactly?

File: IMG_0845.jpg (278KB, 1200x1200px) Image search: [Google]

278KB, 1200x1200px

>pwnd most of the known world that mattered. Only didn't conquer India because his men couldn't take winning for so long anymore
>philosopher king with a gift for understanding other cultures and crafting propaganda
>never really lost a battle in 15 years of conquest
>tactical genius

And I'm just sitting here at 27 arguing with cunts on an anime board.
and all before the age of 32.

>>2657009
>1,188 of 843 tanks damaged or destroyed
ruthless efficiency

>ctrl+f "caesar"
>no results
only topped by this man
>>2657577

>>2656774
Zama

Hannibal's invasion of Italy, while tactically brilliant, was a strategic disaster. His victories achieved nothing for the Carthaginians when you look at the second Punic war as a whole.

>>2657557
>Committed to battle

So, Hood evacuated because he wasn't going to be cut off and sieged by a much larger force. It's stupid to compare troops committed to battle when the massive army looming over the horizon is what won it.

>Yes, both armies were called Army of the Tennesee.

You know damn well that the Confederate Army of Tennessee didn't include a The and your just being obtuse about it to save face. I just thought it was a funny slip up.

>But keep shifting those goalposts, I'm not going to be responding further to your idiocy.

Because he didn't take any of these armies out if the field. He never faced them in any battles on the scale of what was happening in Virginia. So yes, he spent the majority of the his command burning empty houses while Johnston was in the Carolinas and Hood was in Tennessee.

>>2657559
Because the surrender of the army of northern Virginia was after 4 long years of battle and manpower issues. To give all the credit to the last general to face him and his depleted army so you can inflate his "stats" is disingenuous. If Grant were to face Lee back in 1862 I'm sure it would look a lot different.

File: Donald-Trump-General-Marshal-Comic-Wedding-Decoration-Military-uniform-Oil-Painting-Hand-Painted-on-Canvas-Free_grande.jpg (90KB, 399x482px) Image search: [Google]

90KB, 399x482px

>>2657577
you didn't inherit daddy's army, and the persian's administrative system required to support it, so don't be so hard on yourself.

>>2656395
Napoleon is the correct answer.

File: image.jpg (37KB, 503x292px) Image search: [Google]

37KB, 503x292px

Hari Singh Nalwa
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hari_Singh_Nalwa

Publius Cornelius Scipio Africanus

File: 1481993889874.jpg (89KB, 566x677px) Image search: [Google]

89KB, 566x677px

Grant, Lee, Napoleon, and Sherman are my favorites. Lettow-Vorbeck for sure though.

>>2657287
can't be a dixieboo if you're from the south people who add "boo" to the end of everything BTFO

>>2656395
Rommel is the most overrated of all time, he was average. https://de.scribd.com/document/287400424/Rethinking-Rommel

>>2656709
pretty good list, but
>no alessandro farnese
>raimondo montecuccoli is italian not austria
>no skanderbeg
>no janos hunyadi
>selim the grim was a shit sultan and a shittier general
>no akhbar of mughals
>no gaja madha
>no admiral yi
>no oda nobunaga

>>2660010
Montecuccoli served Austria, same reason why Eugene of Savoy is listed as Austria but Latin.
I don't really get why Churchill is considered higher than Eugene though.
Also, belisarius hellenic?

Why does everyone mention Napoleon but forget Davout?

I'd rather have him in charge of a battle, frankly.

>>2656552
so over rated

File: RomanRepublic_afterJulius Caesar.jpg (53KB, 730x496px) Image search: [Google]

53KB, 730x496px

>>2656395
Caesar

Branko Borković

>>2656552
this nigga had his men rush a well defended hil multiple times even though it kept not working

>>2660281
Sherman did the same thing at Kennesaw Mountain. Grant did the same thing at Cold Harbor. Whats your point?

Good picks if you actually give a shit about military strategy is Slim (Burma) and Dyan (six day war)
Easily the British and Israelis best generals of the 20th century but are so overlooked by /his/ and /pol/ because one is an Anglo and the other is a Jew.

>>2656398
nah me

>>2656709
pretty good, but has some mistakes

>ctrl+f
>no mention of Alexander

what is wrong with you people

>>2660010
selim was a god-tier general
fuck off shilling faggot

>>2660112
the fuck is up with the caspian sea in this map

>>2657577
Parmenion did nothing wrong.

>>2660010
selim was an alright general but definitely not one of the best, in the war against the mamluk often he won simply because his army is more numerous and equipped with firear like https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marj_Dabiq

bayezid is better desu

>>2664331
lrn2mapprojections

>>2659970
>>2656707
>>2656589
Can you guys fuck off with this contrarian "if people like Rommel /his/ has to hate him" shit. He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war and respected on all sides. Fuck off with your contrarianism.

File: aku7.gif (895KB, 640x480px) Image search: [Google]

895KB, 640x480px

>>2667040
>He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war

File: statue-quintus-fabius-maximus-verrucosus-schonbrunn-garden-vienna-austria-roman-politican-general-was-generally-made-58388216.jpg (288KB, 957x1300px) Image search: [Google]

288KB, 957x1300px

Fabius Maximus.
Conducted the 2nd Punic War as though it were a Fire Emblem campaign. Real life min/maxer. Absolutely based.

>>2656398
This guy

>>2656841
>hurr durr every geman soldier was a nazi

It's not like the oath for the Wehrmacht was ""I swear to God this sacred oath that to the Leader of the German Empire and people, Adolf Hitler, supreme commander of the armed forces, I shall render unconditional obedience and that as a brave soldier I shall at all times be prepared to give my life for this oath.""

>>2656395
Three greatest in western history are the Africanus, Ulysses Grant, and Suvorov.

File: Rommel.jpg (224KB, 1500x1500px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 1500x1500px

>>2667040
>He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war

File: VXSOMlOGYQGHe.gif (403KB, 330x204px) Image search: [Google]

403KB, 330x204px

>>2667040
>he rates rommel

>>2660328
Not him but Sherman and Grant got things done. They expended soldiers' lives in exchange for results. Lee just kinda moved his army around until totally getting BTFO.

File: Lettow-Vorbeck.jpg (54KB, 536x800px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 536x800px

>>2656395
Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck (20 March 1870 – 9 March 1964), known as the Lion of Africa, was a general in the Prussian Army and the commander of its forces in the German East Africa campaign. For four years, with a force that never exceeded about 14,000 (3,000 Germans and 11,000 Africans), he held in check a much larger force of 300,000 British, Belgian, and Portuguese troops. Essentially undefeated in the field, Lettow-Vorbeck was the only German commander to successfully invade imperial British soil during the First World War. His exploits in the campaign have been described by Edwin Palmer Hoyt "as the greatest single guerrilla operation in history, and the most successful."[1

>>2667960

Lee had limited resources and couldn't afford to throw away lives like the industrialized North was well accustomed to doing.

This man went undefeated
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid#List_of_battles
>Khalid is said to have fought around a hundred battles, both major battles and minor skirmishes as well as single duels, during his military career. Having remained undefeated, he is claimed by some to be one of the finest military generals in history

>>2668236
and he totally got beat the fuck out

>>2668349
Timur was never beaten either

>>2668349
He participated once in a battle in which his side lost.

File: Stonewall_Jackson_by_Routzahn,_1862.png (2MB, 1200x1687px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1200x1687px

>>2656552
overrated but still a genius. this guy should've been commanding the army of northern virginia imo. if he lived to command at gettysburg things might've turned out different

>>2668236
>Lee had limited resources and couldn't afford to throw away lives
Yet he kept throwing away lives anyway.

>>2668412
The only reason for his success was only he and his men knew the lay of the Shenandoah valley.

>>2668442

sounds pretty fucking based to me

>>2668439
This. Definitely the most overrated general in the war of Southern Aggression.

>>2660328
That Civil War generals were all trash who failed to properly utilize and develop new tactics to deal with the advancing technology of the time.

>>2668442
and he obviously knew how to fucking use it. is that not becoming of an extremely intelligent general, much less any competent general?

>>2656709
I like this

>>2668442
Success = Success
Doesn't matter how he arrived at it.

>>2668475
>were all trash
Im sure you would have done better in their position with their knowledge lol

File: 1479839401852.jpg (35KB, 442x717px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 442x717px

>>2656395
Not your pic, I assume?

>>2656841
Nobody said that you fucking retard.

File: 1483236871302.jpg (731KB, 1227x849px) Image search: [Google]

731KB, 1227x849px

>>2656841
Not all German soldiers were German either

>>2656850
>Le clean Wehrmacht meme

>>2668765
>in their position
Wouldn't be in "their position" lol.

>>2656395
the one who won at least a war while being the underdog
Mannheim comes to my mind

>>2668360
>beat the fuck out

yikes

>>2656709
>Kemal Ataturk
Do people really believe this? Isn't it obvious that he was a marionet of his enemies, fighting a fake war? Thats the only reason he won it

>>2656709
>Churchill

Great list other than that

>>2656709
>Patton above Suvorov
>John Churchill and Maurice above Genghis Khan

>>2667040
>He was easily in the top three greatest generals
not even in the German top 3

Rommel was an outstanding soldier but had problems with grand strategy which became evident as he was promoted ever higher. Rommel understood the propaganda machinery as no other German general.
Also the Anglos jumped on the Rommel meme to justify their defeat in North Africa rather than admitting their own stupidity.

File: 44c8ed5bad449e928b58003ae7ee9e68.jpg (259KB, 620x444px) Image search: [Google]

259KB, 620x444px

>>2656709
>Patton above Suvorov

>>2656463
>Manstein
I second this.
For ancient history I'd go with Hannibal

>>2668442
So he fulfills one of the principles of warfare - terrain, therefore he is a shit general.

>??????????

Friendly Fags of War, I'm very interested in warfare and the great wars that were fought throughout history. The Napoleonic wars and the American Revolutionary war are the ones i have recently been interested in. The battle of Austerlitz where Napoleon baited the ever retreating Kutuzov into a massive overcommital was especially dank.

What books would you recommend about the great generals of warfare. I haven't even read Sun Tzu's The Art of War.

>>2657456
what a cuck

>>2670389
>>>/pol/

File: 1358720975709.png (209KB, 340x507px) Image search: [Google]

209KB, 340x507px

>>2668814
> literally using a notorious fake propaganda picture to make a meme directed at questioning ww2 propaganda
Its almost as half the antifa edgelords here are doing it ironically.

>>2656709
>Subutai

How did some tent-living commoner with presumably zero education become so competent as to direct armies and achieve victories thousands of miles away from each other?

File: 1484397423609.jpg (253KB, 1359x544px) Image search: [Google]

253KB, 1359x544px

>>2670950
>> literally using a notorious fake propaganda picture to make a meme directed at questioning ww2 propaganda
Let me guess, you're going to post debunked memes about Yugoslavian partisans

File: 1492041482594.jpg (140KB, 631x725px) Image search: [Google]

140KB, 631x725px

>>2670950
I like how you're posting faked "propaganda" images which can't be found in any history books or other sources outside of Stormfront.
Methinks Stormies created these "fakes" themselves.
Believe me, nobody needs to create fake images of German atrocities, there is plenty of photographic evidence as it is.

>>2667040
He actually was not respected by the rest of the german generals, because of his dumb mistakes on his quest for glory. The allies had no big sympathy for him, but he was convenient for propaganda purposes. He just is not a top tier general.

File: 1358716836731.jpg (434KB, 1624x1628px) Image search: [Google]

434KB, 1624x1628px

>>2670976
How was it debunked? Uniform isn't what Wehrmacht was using in 1942 (the bag especially gives it away) and rifle is clearly Yugoslav version of kar98.
>>2670987
Ww2 was not the first nor the last time when we see fake pictures of atrocities allegedly committed by the opponent of the side from which such propaganda came. Hell, just look at Libya and Syria.
Assuming that every propaganda piece about a losing side produced by the victor is real is literally declaring that you are fucking stupid.

File: 1490851792204.jpg (163KB, 1185x828px) Image search: [Google]

163KB, 1185x828px

>>2671063
>Uniform isn't what Wehrmacht was using in 1942
Nope. See the image I posted. It's an Ordnungspolizei uniform.

>rifle is clearly Yugoslav version of kar98.
Or maybe it's a Vz. 24 which was used by the Wehrmacht and SS in large numbers.
See pic.

File: 1490851792119.jpg (92KB, 500x694px) Image search: [Google]

92KB, 500x694px

>>2671082
Another pic of Vz. 24 in German service
Looks similar to Yugoslavian Mauser

>>2656709
>Hannibal
>Berber

Stopped reading there. He was Phoenician

File: 1480114616477.png (55KB, 789x680px) Image search: [Google]

55KB, 789x680px

>>2656586
Hey did well in the early stages of the war but he caused other problems. He made northern Virginia the main focus of the war and focused material there instead of the West.

Also, CSA morale was leaning almost entirely on Lee. He was a great general but didn't look at the larger picture of the conflict very well.

File: Hannibal.jpg (17KB, 300x300px) Image search: [Google]

17KB, 300x300px

>>2656395
>Posting Rommels pic and not posting this one.

just...

>>2671131
Forgot to add how he keep taking huge losses even though manpower was a real concern. He should of focused on defensive battles and withdrawn more. Instead he got a high from battle and kept wanting to attack and score a decisive victory.

>>2668814
What the fuck is with that meme and people from West? I mean, on other sites I saw people defending Germany in WW2 and shit like this >clean Wehrmacht...

How did we get to this?
Why?

File: worst ideia in the history of mankind.jpg (16KB, 294x268px) Image search: [Google]

16KB, 294x268px

>>2668531
>2016 AD
>there are people that still believe superficial success equals personal competence

File: IMG_0776.jpg (21KB, 220x299px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 220x299px

I'm a fan but I want your opinion.

Also wondering how you think Marius would rank historically.

>>2657594
That wasn't his fault. Had the Carthaginian state backed him up in any way, things would have turned out differently.

>>2656395
Rommel was one of the greatest officers for a corps I can imagine, but he wasnt a great general.
His hands-on approach didnt work with a whole army.
the best general was probably alexander the great, he build up a very capable army and btfo an entire empire. Also btfo'd some indians.

>>2671082
>Nope. See the image I posted. It's an Ordnungspolizei uniform.
The bag on the side kinda gives it away, even the cropped out version.
Even if the opposite was the case, its not like one could create propaganda by having someone wear enemy''s uniform. Truly, such cunning isn't known to humankind!
Or it could just be a Ukrainian or some other Eastern Collaborator unit, which had rather ragtag mix of Soviet and Axis equipment and uniforms.
> Or maybe it's a Vz. 24
Maybe. Then again, same rifle was employed by Soviets as well. Another inconsistency is that soldier is clearly not aiming at the woman, as he is aiming down the sites and you can see that woman herself is to the right of the soldier so he'd have to be turned towards the camera (which disproves the propaganda narrative behind the photo).
Needless to say, the photo came from a Polish propaganda photographer named Jerzy Tomaszewski, who worked for the Bureau of Information and Propaganda. Its authenticity was question since 1960s.
Even Independent made an article acknowledging the possibility of it being fake.

>>2657454
fuck off

>>>/leftypol/

File: 1486960200312.jpg (51KB, 400x515px) Image search: [Google]

51KB, 400x515px

>>2670950
They are. Its funny seeing antifa/legit neonazis linking obviously shooped photos

>lets just ignore Hitler's black hand in thie photo
>he wasn't really a racist we swear

Also whever they post the edited version of the soviet solder over the Reichstag without the 5 expensive watches he looted from someons corpse kek.

Tankies are the same shit as ancoms, just complete edgelords.

>>2668224
god damn

I'm pretty good at XCOM if that counts for anything

File: 1484397553039.png (2MB, 1500x4091px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1500x4091px

>>2672240
>The bag on the side kinda gives it away
How the fuck is the fact that he's wearing a bag on his belt somehow evidence of the picture being faked?
You know the Germans wore bags as well right?
The soldier's cuffs also match those of Ordnungspolizei uniforms

>Even if the opposite was the case, its not like one could create propaganda by having someone wear enemy''s uniform. Truly, such cunning isn't known to humankind!
Nice hypothesis.

>Then again, same rifle was employed by Soviets as well.
No it wasn't. They bought some which they gave to the Republicans during the Spanish Civil war but that's it. They did not supply their army with them.
The Germans, however, made frequent use of them.

>Another inconsistency is that soldier is clearly not aiming at the woman, as he is aiming down the sites and you can see that woman herself is to the right of the soldier so he'd have to be turned towards the camera
There are other people besides the woman in the photograph

>Needless to say, the photo came from a Polish propaganda photographer named Jerzy Tomaszewski
Proofs?

>Even Independent made an article acknowledging the possibility of it being fake.
Gonna need a link

>>2671550
>Personally, I have a huge respect for Saladin too. But while good, he's probably not best of all time. I feel that he's more known for his upstanding character than for astounding marshal prowess.

File: 1486980423519.jpg (564KB, 1550x859px) Image search: [Google]

564KB, 1550x859px

Napoleon

Maybe Hannibal

Alexander, followed by caesar and napoleon

>>2668999
t. Erdoğan

>>2672265
>The Werhmact is shit he's right
>I'll tell him to fuck off! that'll show him like the Russians showed the Germans defeat ;)

George Henry Thomas.

>>2667040
Yeah, except:
Manstein
von Kluge
Patton
Omar
Zhukov
von Reichenau
von Rundstedt
and Rokossovsky would like a word.

>>2667040
>He was easily in the top three greatest generals of the war

No. Rommel is only liked so much because it is safe for people to like him. If you talk about other German generals like Manstein, Guderian, von Kluge you'll be accused of being a Wehraboo or worse a Naziboo.

>>2656709
Any undefeated general is basically equal to each other. Then those who were defeated but had far greater victories can be equal then.

>>2656774
Ilipa.

>>2668765
Its fairly true. The whole civil war was pretty embarrassing as a display of military prowess, except for the general performance of the average confederate soldier which was exceptional

Put civil war armies up against a competent european army of the day and you would be left with mountains of dead americans

>>2656709
lots of good stuff in there. disagree with some of it though

>duke of marlborough ABOVE eugene of savoy and montecuccoli
has to be a joke

ataturk and mehmet fatih are both too high, most of their important work had little to do with warfare and more to do with statemanship

Suvorov should be higher

also i dont get how you can include like 7 fucking turks and none of napoleons subordinates. credits for including Nader Shah though, he's criminally underrated (or rather, forgotten about)

>>2657444

DO IT AGAIN UNCLE BILLY

File: 1457729678362.gif (1021KB, 421x389px) Image search: [Google]

1021KB, 421x389px

>>2657456
>if they can get past his 19th centry style racism
Why is /his/ so reddit?

File: David_-_Napoleon_crossing_the_Alps_-_Malmaison2.jpg (1MB, 3394x4134px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 3394x4134px

>>2656395
>1812
Winter was unusually bad and he was unlucky the Russians didn't fight fairly. He won every battle against the Russians though.
>1815
His marshals failed him.

File: 3fdc412075432c978ca1320ed80a7e63.jpg (409KB, 1280x1766px) Image search: [Google]

409KB, 1280x1766px

>>2656395
Also von Manstein was a much better general than Rommel

File: Scipio Africanus 1.jpg (31KB, 423x600px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 423x600px

>>2656395
Either Erwin Rommel or Scipio Africanus. Here's a bus of Africanus:

File: khalid arab.png (864KB, 1900x1364px) Image search: [Google]

864KB, 1900x1364px

khalid ibn al-walid, subotai, napoleon are some of my favorites
ceasar was pretty good too but but my fasination is more of a "look at this man of history and his life" than "look at this military commander"

>>2674275
Didn't the French lose to Mexicans during the 1860's?

>>2674275
the way Americans fought during the civil war was rather violent. An emphasis on killing one's enemy with firearms rather than driving him from the field with bayonet charges that came about 50 years too early for the First World War. It would have seemed fairly brutish and uncultured to European armies, which is probably part of the reason they didn't learn as much from it as they should have

Are admirals contenders too? If so i say this guy https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blas_de_Lezo

>>2656709
Why is Scipio Africanus in the high tier and not Ceasar and Nelson. Yes Scipio defeated a veteran army which was probably superior to him, however everyone forgets that Hannibal's army wasn't greatly supplied and a poorly supplied army usually loses.
Nelson fucking whooped the French and Spanish asses securing the British Naval Superiority for the next 50 years meaning they could effectively take over the world.

>>2677222
Read Liddell Hart's book on Africanus. It lays out how Scipio was the prototype of the logistics/strategic general who went up against the tactics general and won.

>>2656395
/sg/ - Syria General in /pol/ are pretty chill and have indirectly killed jihadis

>>2668224
Not the greatest, but definitely up there. Really wish he had more recognition

>>2669817
He's talking about Blenheim's Churchill you dumb fuck.

Patton

>>2656398
this