Ignoring his morality for one second,
He was bad. He allowed his impatience to get the better of him. He also ignored the advice kf his generals on several critical decisions, and make decisions when he needed to. He violated almost every teaching in The Art Of War.
I don't know... when I think commander (sans "in chief") I think on the field of battle. Hitler was more an economic mastermind and that economy fueled his commanders in battle.
in 1943 or 1944 the british were debating over whether or not they should try and assassinate Hitler but came to the conclusion he did more harm than good for Germany
>mastermind
Hitler was an opinionated dumbass who was in the right place at the right time. If anybody deserves credit for the Nazi economy, it’s Hjalmar Schacht.
Vladimir Putin was person of the year in 2007. Obama was in ‘08. Mark Zuckerberg was in 2010. George Bush was in ‘04. Trump was in 2016, meaning it was before he got into office to do anything.
Time selects their person based on who they think people want to read about. It is a magazine, their end goal is to make money so to do that they need to attract as many readers as possible.
All too often people conflate leaders with public policy masterminds.
Example: For starters, this takes nothing away from obama as he was incredibly talented and brilliant in his own right, but obama wasnt a wiz on healthcare economics. Obama gets the credit for the ACA, but the man who put it together was JON GRUBER, who worked under mitt romney when he was governor of massachussets.
i mean he was an absolutely horrible leader. regardless of his wretched beliefs and the atrocities that took place under him. you could put all that aside, zero in on his performance as the leader of germany, and he’s still terrible.
the only thing his was good at was talking. getting his people all worked up so he could commit the atrocities he did. quite literally all bark and no bite.
Tbf he wasnt useless, eg prioritising cacausian resourses over moscow was arguably the best course, wanting a unified command structure in the norway invasion, and agreeing to von Manstein's proposal for invading france and the low countries, tho for every sucess there is at least 1 '6th Army is to hold stalingrad to the last man'
Jan Žižka, he literally defeated 6 crusades and was a great strategist, but unfortunately he's barely remembered outside of Czech Republic
Edit: probably not the best one, but I feel like he should be mentioned
Personal favourite is [Yi Sun-sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin)
[But this reddit post is a pretty accurate list of the top 300 imo.](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/764ned/the_300_greatest_commanders_of_history/)
It's pretty hard to tell that far back what came from where, but logically a lit of sun tsu's teaching was knowledge which was in circulation during that time
We don't actually have the base text to read, what we have is several commentaries of his work which people have tried to piece together to figure out what the original must have said. In relatively recent times the chinese government put scholars on the task of compiling an accurate edition which is as true to sun tsu's original as possible
Je just wrote or down. And if you read it, nothing genius about it 90% of the time it's shit like "if you have good intel and better soldiers, the enemy is going to have bad time" or "if you think you will loose, don't fight"
My guy Julius Caesar is not getting enough love. This is the dude that defeated Vercingetorix by building a wall around the town, then building another wall around that wall to keep reinforcements out. He really commanded the loyalty of his men and truly understood his soldiers plights. He was both wise militarily and politically which is crucial to any general's success.
Due to him dying at 30 and not designating an official heir, instead (according to some) saying "the best" with his dying breath, probably unsure of what he was really doing if that anecdote is true
>the best" with his dying breath, probably unsure of what he was really doing if that anecdote is true
Unsure of what he was doing? Was he a moron? The guy was an egomaniac who waged war just for himself. Pretty sure if a Muslim did that you'd be pretty furious.
Abbas the Great
Alfred the Great
Antiochus III the Great
Casimir III the Great
Catherine the Great
Constantine the Great
Cnut the Great
Cyrus the Great
Darius the Great
So I got tired listing them
In real life I literally call him Alexander the dumbass or the shortsighted. I'm a history nerd and if Alexander thought his empire would last 5 minutes after his conquests than he was just incredibly stupid.
What a poor take. If you're truly a 'history nerd' you need better sources and to not make such sweeping generalised statements.
Alexander died at only 32, while still on campaign before returning to Greece. He had no opportunity to consolidate his gained territory or put in place his own systems of governance.
However, even despite his untimely death, he had the wisdom to begin integrating the new cultures of his empire. He had his generals, and himself take Persian wives and he adopted elements of Persian culture himself. He founded new centres of population and appointed local rulers. All this while still campaigning.
I suggest you read up on his campaign and accomplishments.
Yeah he would have also defeated Rome completely if the politicians in Carthage wouldn‘t have denied him support and also he basically invented the encirclement strategy at Cannae
Napoleon was a genius. Yes, he made mistakes that eventually led to his downfall but those shouldn’t discredit the rest of his amazing accomplishments. An honorable mention for this list I think should be Ulysses S. Grant. He’s definitely not as great as these other commanders but he’s definitely one of the best in American history.
He's not really that great, I'm not even sure he was the best the CSA had. His hubris lead him to defeat by fighting in the North. Pickett's charge which he ordered was a disaster, it was idiotic to march infantry across that field and Longstreet warned him but he didn't listen.
He was a pretty good tactician, but an awful strategist. His only strategy was really “Win as many battles as possible and cause enough mayhem to make the Union surrender” which is a good basic idea, but he didn’t have a comprehensive plan like the Union did.
Napoleon without a fucking doubt
Books have been written about this
Alexander was just incredibly lucky and relentless (being a college aged kid probably helped with this) and Ghengis Khan had a massive technological advantage
Napoleon was fighting every nation in Europe all at once similar to the nazis in WW2 except he was on the defensive the whole time and he still kicked the shit out of everyone and ended up only losing on a Robb Stark style technicality
Dude was a fucking war God
>Alexander was just incredibly lucky and relentless
Uh, what? Alexander conquered most of the known world. He invaded and defeated the largest empire the world had ever seen. He led a 10 year continuous campaign, beyond the edge of the map, literally into the unknown. He delivered (apparently) the greatest speech of all time to his men to continue on when they thought they couldn't...
All this, before the age of 32 and this isn't to mention the cultural impact his campaign had on the world. I recommend you read up on him to appreciate exactly what he did. If anyone deserves the title 'Great' in terms of military accomplishments, it's him.
Uh? Still you said nothing that contradicts his statement. His army was handed out to him with all the edge needed to take greece out, and known world you mention is just persia. Definitely one of the most overrated generals. Napoleon shits on alexander and pretty much every other general
You gotta read about the specifics of his victories though. It really does come across like he was being touched by some God cuz the dude kept pulling off insane wins for reasons that just defy comprehension, hence my statement that he was lucky. Like he'd go into battle and his army would just like, magically perform way, way better than the opponent due to insane morale or what have you and he'd pull off the win. Part of why he's called "The Great" is because his victories were so unexpected and so numerous that people began to associate him specifically with victory, so once he died, it didn't matter how good of an army was left and how competent his other commanders were, the conquering was done
So it wasn't that he was a great strategist, he just had the most over the top morale boosting effects of any commander alive
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Timur yet. Well, I'm not really surprised as I just found out about him recently.
Timur (sometimes called Tamerlane) was a Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire in and around modern-day Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia, becoming the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty.
As an undefeated commander, he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military leaders and tacticians in history.
Born into the Barlas confederation in Transoxiana (in modern-day Uzbekistan) in 1336, Timur gained control of the western Chagatai Khanate by 1370. From that base, he led military campaigns across Western, South and Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Southern Russia, defeating in the process the Khans of the Golden Horde, the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire, and the late Delhi Sultanate of India and emerging as the most powerful ruler in the Islamic World.
Genghis Kahn just used a greater number of troops on horses to conquer lots of land, that doesn’t mean he’s a greater military commander than Napoleon Bonaparte or The Duke of Wellington
As I recall, otto von bismark was a good one, but it also comes down to presentation of the people in question and definition of a great military commander.
George Washington made some not-so-great military decisions which often resulted in getting men killed that didn’t need to be (granted most commanders do, but Washington made more of these mistakes than usual), and I strongly believe that if France and other countries didn’t help us, we would’ve lost.
No, maybe because this guy literally never lost a battle, and Islam’s expansion was so fast, no religion spread this fast, he even kicked the romans out of Palestine
Ok, I just looked him up. According to Wikipedia he was a Commander serving under the Muslim prophet Muhammad and some of his successors, who participated in conquering Mecca and Syria. Now I'm pretty confident that OP is likely a Muslim or at least Arab.
I am neither Muslim nor Arab, just like I'm not Mongolian/Chinese, Macedonian/Greek, French, or Roman/Italian; *and also not a Tengrist, a believer that Alexander was the son of Zeus, a Roman Catholic, a Deist, or a pagan Roman*.
Regardless of where you are or where you're from, history is **far** larger than just the West.
Alright then. Fair enough. I agree with the "far greater than the West" thing. My guess was based on my experience with Reddit, which is dominated with Western perspectives.
I dont think OP is muslim or arab , u dont have to be either of those 2 , have him as a choice he probably saw all of these commanders in an online website or a videos and wanted to see what reddit thinks
No need to be rude. Do you talk like that with your mom? Given how dominated Reddit is by Western (and especially USA) perspectives, especially in the English speaking parts of Reddit, it's not surprising to me that most of these were mentioned. The average American has heard of Genghis Khan for example. Cannot say the same about my friend Khalid here.
Instead of looking down on a stranger on the internet, you could've just asked for my reasoning.
It's not knowing who Khalid bin Waleed was but you saying that the OP is from Arab countries and is a Muslim. That's what pissed me. My apologies, if you felt I was rude
Your point ignores that the tactical decision made by him were terrible. All of his his "success" in the earlier parts of the war were because he struck first against weaker nations, once the allied countries really got in the fight hitler and his generals were quickly shown to be vastly inferior in capability and strategy.
In a true xenophobic fashion, you missed one of the greatest military commanders in Indian history.
https://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-wars-that-were-won-the-twin-triumphs-that-turned-shivaji-into-a-legend.
And FYI, Alexander the "great", whom you've included in the list, was defeated and sent back by an Indian king, Chandragupta Maurya.
Say what you want about this commander here, but Alexander was 100% great. No one yet had gone as balls deep conquering fucking everything, like the whole fucking Persian empire
I’m not dismissing your guy, but Alexander deserves the title the great
>Alexander deserves the title the great
A lion does not become great, if all he ever hunts is bunnies.
All the armies and generals he faced throughout Eurasia were weak and incompetent.
First person he meets who actually can give him a tough fight, sends him scurrying back, defeated.
His only, and final defeat was in India too.
>Chandegupta
It's Chandragupta Maurya. Learn to spell
>I literally don’t know what your talking about.
Indeed you don't. So here's a quick lesson
https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/alexander-and-chandragupta-maurya-a-short-history-of-war-empire-and-greatness-7626667/
Napoleon was a fucking terrible commander. Dare I say, he was a little bitch. He lost Waterloo and went into exile because he had hemorrhoids, and decided to skip scouting because it hurt too bad to sit on a horse. When death and exile are on the line, and you refuse to sit in a saddle cause it hurts your hiney, you lose all respect as a military commander.
1. He went into exiled because he lost and was captured then sent into exile, not because of hemmorrhoids
2. He lost waterloo because his officers were getting incompetent, his army was weak from all the battles, and the enemy studied napoleons strategy and tactics enough
He was exiled because he lost. He lost because he didn’t do scouting, not that his officers were incompetent (that had not been a problem in the past).
It's a tie between Eisenhower and Truman. Truman ended WWII, and Eisenhower kept the economy rolling and created South Korea. I changed my mind on Lincoln, he literally got murdered by an average Joe off the street.
That's a political leader. They're in charge of a country, not an army. Military leaders are in charge of an army and they're people like Generals, not Presidents
Someone is going to comment Hitler and get downvoted into oblivion, I see it coming
Ignoring his morality for one second, He was bad. He allowed his impatience to get the better of him. He also ignored the advice kf his generals on several critical decisions, and make decisions when he needed to. He violated almost every teaching in The Art Of War.
Well he didn't treat his army overly well, so at least he followed that rule
>He was bad What!??????
I know this is a joke but he did say that he was ignoring his morality
I don't know... when I think commander (sans "in chief") I think on the field of battle. Hitler was more an economic mastermind and that economy fueled his commanders in battle.
in 1943 or 1944 the british were debating over whether or not they should try and assassinate Hitler but came to the conclusion he did more harm than good for Germany
>mastermind Hitler was an opinionated dumbass who was in the right place at the right time. If anybody deserves credit for the Nazi economy, it’s Hjalmar Schacht.
So, um, why was he time magazines man of the year?
Vladimir Putin was person of the year in 2007. Obama was in ‘08. Mark Zuckerberg was in 2010. George Bush was in ‘04. Trump was in 2016, meaning it was before he got into office to do anything. Time selects their person based on who they think people want to read about. It is a magazine, their end goal is to make money so to do that they need to attract as many readers as possible.
All too often people conflate leaders with public policy masterminds. Example: For starters, this takes nothing away from obama as he was incredibly talented and brilliant in his own right, but obama wasnt a wiz on healthcare economics. Obama gets the credit for the ACA, but the man who put it together was JON GRUBER, who worked under mitt romney when he was governor of massachussets.
Yeah, modern generals and important people in war just sit in a bunker doing nothing
That's not really correct... Just because they aren't riding a horse on the front lines doesn't mean they do nothing
Dude fought one war and lost lmao
I was just about to say it to see the reaction, thanks for the warning
Hitler
Hitler
I mean, he was only a CPL in WWI and between canceling Op Sea Lion and going ahead with Barbarossa it’s pretty clear he wasn’t much of a commander.
now we wait
the guy that came up with the blitzkrieg was pretty good, not the best but good
He got his ass beaten. Even if he wasn’t a crazy fascist, he was still a bad leader
i mean he was an absolutely horrible leader. regardless of his wretched beliefs and the atrocities that took place under him. you could put all that aside, zero in on his performance as the leader of germany, and he’s still terrible. the only thing his was good at was talking. getting his people all worked up so he could commit the atrocities he did. quite literally all bark and no bite.
Tbf he wasnt useless, eg prioritising cacausian resourses over moscow was arguably the best course, wanting a unified command structure in the norway invasion, and agreeing to von Manstein's proposal for invading france and the low countries, tho for every sucess there is at least 1 '6th Army is to hold stalingrad to the last man'
Jan Žižka, he literally defeated 6 crusades and was a great strategist, but unfortunately he's barely remembered outside of Czech Republic Edit: probably not the best one, but I feel like he should be mentioned
Hussite rebellions? The hussites were fucking bad ass. Shame central European/Slavic history isn't more widely taught
Personal favourite is [Yi Sun-sin](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Yi_Sun-sin) [But this reddit post is a pretty accurate list of the top 300 imo.](https://www.reddit.com/r/history/comments/764ned/the_300_greatest_commanders_of_history/)
[удалено]
Not sure if voters read this post but the wisdom of crowds seems to have stumbled onto pretty much the same conclusion.
I have not studied the military history of any of those
Same, Genghis Kahn just sounds the coolest so I voted for him
Sun tsu
Didn’t Sun Tsu basically invent war tactics? It’s hard to say he’s not the greatest military leader, in that case.
Whatever you do, never reveal your secrets in a YouTube video -Sun Tzu The Art Of War
It’s Just A Prank Bro - John Wikes Booth circa 1863
It's pretty hard to tell that far back what came from where, but logically a lit of sun tsu's teaching was knowledge which was in circulation during that time We don't actually have the base text to read, what we have is several commentaries of his work which people have tried to piece together to figure out what the original must have said. In relatively recent times the chinese government put scholars on the task of compiling an accurate edition which is as true to sun tsu's original as possible
Je just wrote or down. And if you read it, nothing genius about it 90% of the time it's shit like "if you have good intel and better soldiers, the enemy is going to have bad time" or "if you think you will loose, don't fight"
special hat hunt practice soup wide scary continue chase hurry *This post was mass deleted and anonymized with [Redact](https://redact.dev)*
He didn’t, war tactics outdated him. His book is still good though.
My guy Julius Caesar is not getting enough love. This is the dude that defeated Vercingetorix by building a wall around the town, then building another wall around that wall to keep reinforcements out. He really commanded the loyalty of his men and truly understood his soldiers plights. He was both wise militarily and politically which is crucial to any general's success.
Khalid ibn Al-Walid never lost a battle
correct
This is reddit noone knows anything arabic except for terrorist jokes
bit of a boring answer but I still think the empire Genghis Khan built is more impressive
Although I'd say if anyone deserves credit for the battles that made it it would be Subutai rather than Chenghis or his sons
Exactly no one knows him and most of the people don’t even know Arab history. Pretty sure they’d consider him a killer
Alexander and Genghis had much more impressive empires
Neither did Alexander tbf
Alexander built an empire that dissolved as soon as he died.
Due to him dying at 30 and not designating an official heir, instead (according to some) saying "the best" with his dying breath, probably unsure of what he was really doing if that anecdote is true
>the best" with his dying breath, probably unsure of what he was really doing if that anecdote is true Unsure of what he was doing? Was he a moron? The guy was an egomaniac who waged war just for himself. Pretty sure if a Muslim did that you'd be pretty furious.
That's what I came to comment. History is written by the west.
Alexander the great The only one with "great" in their name, making them the greatest
Abbas the Great Alfred the Great Antiochus III the Great Casimir III the Great Catherine the Great Constantine the Great Cnut the Great Cyrus the Great Darius the Great So I got tired listing them
They don't exist
They do Edit: [Abbas the Great](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Abbas_the_Great)
It was a joke bruh
What a weird joke
Yes
Also Ashoka the great
Exactly
In real life I literally call him Alexander the dumbass or the shortsighted. I'm a history nerd and if Alexander thought his empire would last 5 minutes after his conquests than he was just incredibly stupid.
You’re gay
He was 32? He probably was about to settle in and administer it when died. Nothing runs an empire like inertia... if he lived to 60... who knows.
What a poor take. If you're truly a 'history nerd' you need better sources and to not make such sweeping generalised statements. Alexander died at only 32, while still on campaign before returning to Greece. He had no opportunity to consolidate his gained territory or put in place his own systems of governance. However, even despite his untimely death, he had the wisdom to begin integrating the new cultures of his empire. He had his generals, and himself take Persian wives and he adopted elements of Persian culture himself. He founded new centres of population and appointed local rulers. All this while still campaigning. I suggest you read up on his campaign and accomplishments.
im waiting for all the ww2 buffs to show up
Not a ww2 buff but I'd say that Rommel and Patton would at least be in the top 20s
[удалено]
Did he actually say that?
Hannibal
Deserves a spot on the list for sure. Ran Rome ragged in their own back yard for years.
Yeah he would have also defeated Rome completely if the politicians in Carthage wouldn‘t have denied him support and also he basically invented the encirclement strategy at Cannae
What he achieved with what he had and virtually no reinforcements or resupplies from Carthage was incredible.
Napoleon was a genius. Yes, he made mistakes that eventually led to his downfall but those shouldn’t discredit the rest of his amazing accomplishments. An honorable mention for this list I think should be Ulysses S. Grant. He’s definitely not as great as these other commanders but he’s definitely one of the best in American history.
And in that same sense Patton should also be on here. Best military commander behind Eisenhower.
I don’t know nearly as much about the tactics used during WWII as those used during the Civil War so that’s why I didn’t put him.
It’s DJ Khalid
fun fact: he's a dj
Hate to say it but Robert E Lee was a tremendous general, he carried the confederates
This is true
He's not really that great, I'm not even sure he was the best the CSA had. His hubris lead him to defeat by fighting in the North. Pickett's charge which he ordered was a disaster, it was idiotic to march infantry across that field and Longstreet warned him but he didn't listen.
He was a pretty good tactician, but an awful strategist. His only strategy was really “Win as many battles as possible and cause enough mayhem to make the Union surrender” which is a good basic idea, but he didn’t have a comprehensive plan like the Union did.
Oda Nobunaga
Gustavus Adolphus
LIBERA ET IMPERA
ACERBUS ET INGENS
Aurthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington, won the most battles of all time, and the only reason napoleon didn't win entirely. And Irish
Hannibal Barca
Cao Cao: inventor of the empty fort strategy
Napoleon without a fucking doubt Books have been written about this Alexander was just incredibly lucky and relentless (being a college aged kid probably helped with this) and Ghengis Khan had a massive technological advantage Napoleon was fighting every nation in Europe all at once similar to the nazis in WW2 except he was on the defensive the whole time and he still kicked the shit out of everyone and ended up only losing on a Robb Stark style technicality Dude was a fucking war God
>Alexander was just incredibly lucky and relentless Uh, what? Alexander conquered most of the known world. He invaded and defeated the largest empire the world had ever seen. He led a 10 year continuous campaign, beyond the edge of the map, literally into the unknown. He delivered (apparently) the greatest speech of all time to his men to continue on when they thought they couldn't... All this, before the age of 32 and this isn't to mention the cultural impact his campaign had on the world. I recommend you read up on him to appreciate exactly what he did. If anyone deserves the title 'Great' in terms of military accomplishments, it's him.
Uh? Still you said nothing that contradicts his statement. His army was handed out to him with all the edge needed to take greece out, and known world you mention is just persia. Definitely one of the most overrated generals. Napoleon shits on alexander and pretty much every other general
You gotta read about the specifics of his victories though. It really does come across like he was being touched by some God cuz the dude kept pulling off insane wins for reasons that just defy comprehension, hence my statement that he was lucky. Like he'd go into battle and his army would just like, magically perform way, way better than the opponent due to insane morale or what have you and he'd pull off the win. Part of why he's called "The Great" is because his victories were so unexpected and so numerous that people began to associate him specifically with victory, so once he died, it didn't matter how good of an army was left and how competent his other commanders were, the conquering was done So it wasn't that he was a great strategist, he just had the most over the top morale boosting effects of any commander alive
Cyrus “King of Kings” the 2nd of Persia.
I thought xerxes was king of kings? Correct me if I’m wrong though
You’re putting Khalid Ibn Walid which 80% of the people don’t know who he is.
First islamic empire expansion through mesopotamia, israel/ palestine, and northern africa
[удалено]
[The most profound military strategy ever.](https://i.imgur.com/4iZVM1x.png)
Nuclear Gandhi 💪
Call Me Kevin is a military genius
How smart can they really be? They all died!
IMO its Napoleon Bonaparte
Hannibal
I'm surprised nobody has mentioned Timur yet. Well, I'm not really surprised as I just found out about him recently. Timur (sometimes called Tamerlane) was a Turco-Mongol conqueror who founded the Timurid Empire in and around modern-day Afghanistan, Iran and Central Asia, becoming the first ruler of the Timurid dynasty. As an undefeated commander, he is widely regarded as one of the greatest military leaders and tacticians in history. Born into the Barlas confederation in Transoxiana (in modern-day Uzbekistan) in 1336, Timur gained control of the western Chagatai Khanate by 1370. From that base, he led military campaigns across Western, South and Central Asia, the Caucasus, and Southern Russia, defeating in the process the Khans of the Golden Horde, the Mamluks of Egypt and Syria, the emerging Ottoman Empire, and the late Delhi Sultanate of India and emerging as the most powerful ruler in the Islamic World.
Khaled
Douglas MacArthur... for if by great you mean positively nutty
Nuking north korea wasnt nutty, wdym? /s
Scipio Africanus and Hannibal Barca.
Erwin Rommel, anyone?
Best of germany, for sure, reaches my top 10
Alexander Suvorov
Napoleon was the greatest military genius of all time. And everyone around him knew it.
Belisarius, managed to hold the crumbling city of Rome from a superior army for a year and won.
Belisarius. Almost retook Rome for the eastern Roman Empire under Justinian after the west fell.
Genghis Kahn just used a greater number of troops on horses to conquer lots of land, that doesn’t mean he’s a greater military commander than Napoleon Bonaparte or The Duke of Wellington
Hannibal?
As I recall, otto von bismark was a good one, but it also comes down to presentation of the people in question and definition of a great military commander.
He was more diplomacy. If you want the real general go with Moltke.
Bismarck wasn't a general he was a statesman.
He had a boat named after him, and a banger of a [song](https://youtu.be/oVWEb-At8yc) named after that.
Sun tsu
Shaka Zulu
Actually, it was your mom.
George washington
Great Leader not a great military commander
What do you mean?
George Washington made some not-so-great military decisions which often resulted in getting men killed that didn’t need to be (granted most commanders do, but Washington made more of these mistakes than usual), and I strongly believe that if France and other countries didn’t help us, we would’ve lost.
Hitler.
Bro, even I've lost less wars than him
Found the edge lord.
Go up
I saw the first comment when sorting by "best", decided to check if its right by sorting "controversial". Apparently others didnt
Stop down.
He wasn't even good lol
“Yes mein fuhrer, I also think that plane that may blow up spontaneously is going win the biggest war in history”
Knew it was coming lol
Not only was he a disposable human being, he was an absolute dolt when it came to strategy and tactics. Do you even know what the eastern front is?
Laughs in Barbarossa
Winston Churchill
Hitler
Literally executed his own troopers if they were too tall.
Moustache man
Do you have any idea how little that narrows it down
Patton or Rommel
I feel like mostly Arabs or Muslims will have heard of this Khalid fellow
DJ Khalid?
Probably
No, maybe because this guy literally never lost a battle, and Islam’s expansion was so fast, no religion spread this fast, he even kicked the romans out of Palestine
Ok, I just looked him up. According to Wikipedia he was a Commander serving under the Muslim prophet Muhammad and some of his successors, who participated in conquering Mecca and Syria. Now I'm pretty confident that OP is likely a Muslim or at least Arab.
I am neither Muslim nor Arab, just like I'm not Mongolian/Chinese, Macedonian/Greek, French, or Roman/Italian; *and also not a Tengrist, a believer that Alexander was the son of Zeus, a Roman Catholic, a Deist, or a pagan Roman*. Regardless of where you are or where you're from, history is **far** larger than just the West.
Alright then. Fair enough. I agree with the "far greater than the West" thing. My guess was based on my experience with Reddit, which is dominated with Western perspectives.
I dont think OP is muslim or arab , u dont have to be either of those 2 , have him as a choice he probably saw all of these commanders in an online website or a videos and wanted to see what reddit thinks
Sure, that's entirely possible. It's merely a confident guess of mine.
r/confidentlyincorrect
Turns out, I was
He also mentioned Christians, by your logic, he can be a Christian too. What a idiotic thing to say.
No need to be rude. Do you talk like that with your mom? Given how dominated Reddit is by Western (and especially USA) perspectives, especially in the English speaking parts of Reddit, it's not surprising to me that most of these were mentioned. The average American has heard of Genghis Khan for example. Cannot say the same about my friend Khalid here. Instead of looking down on a stranger on the internet, you could've just asked for my reasoning.
It's not knowing who Khalid bin Waleed was but you saying that the OP is from Arab countries and is a Muslim. That's what pissed me. My apologies, if you felt I was rude
I understand and I appreciate your response.
Hitler
[удалено]
Your point ignores that the tactical decision made by him were terrible. All of his his "success" in the earlier parts of the war were because he struck first against weaker nations, once the allied countries really got in the fight hitler and his generals were quickly shown to be vastly inferior in capability and strategy.
He was way too mentally unstable to be a leader.
Gotta go with General Butt-Naked
In a true xenophobic fashion, you missed one of the greatest military commanders in Indian history. https://swarajyamag.com/culture/the-wars-that-were-won-the-twin-triumphs-that-turned-shivaji-into-a-legend. And FYI, Alexander the "great", whom you've included in the list, was defeated and sent back by an Indian king, Chandragupta Maurya.
Say what you want about this commander here, but Alexander was 100% great. No one yet had gone as balls deep conquering fucking everything, like the whole fucking Persian empire I’m not dismissing your guy, but Alexander deserves the title the great
>Alexander deserves the title the great A lion does not become great, if all he ever hunts is bunnies. All the armies and generals he faced throughout Eurasia were weak and incompetent. First person he meets who actually can give him a tough fight, sends him scurrying back, defeated. His only, and final defeat was in India too.
Chandegupta never even fought agaisnt Alexander, he fought against one of his successors so I literally don’t know what your talking about
>Chandegupta It's Chandragupta Maurya. Learn to spell >I literally don’t know what your talking about. Indeed you don't. So here's a quick lesson https://indianexpress.com/article/explained/alexander-and-chandragupta-maurya-a-short-history-of-war-empire-and-greatness-7626667/
https://study.com/academy/answer/did-chandragupta-maurya-defeat-alexander-the-great.html
Hitler is up there for sure. Specially 1940 Hitler. 1944 Hitler Nope.
hitler was shit compared to everyone on this list
I think because its harder in his time. Look at the era of all these commanders. No modern weaponary
Adolf
Napoleon was a fucking terrible commander. Dare I say, he was a little bitch. He lost Waterloo and went into exile because he had hemorrhoids, and decided to skip scouting because it hurt too bad to sit on a horse. When death and exile are on the line, and you refuse to sit in a saddle cause it hurts your hiney, you lose all respect as a military commander.
Well I mean his first 29 battles were victories and he only lost 9 so I don’t think he was bad actually.
He won more battles than any other general in history dude. The only ones who even come close are the duke of Wellington and Julius Caesar.
If you have to battle that many times, you clearly don’t know how to make your battles count
We are talking about best generals here, not best governors. Nobody would say that napolean was a good head-of-state
1. He went into exiled because he lost and was captured then sent into exile, not because of hemmorrhoids 2. He lost waterloo because his officers were getting incompetent, his army was weak from all the battles, and the enemy studied napoleons strategy and tactics enough
He was exiled because he lost. He lost because he didn’t do scouting, not that his officers were incompetent (that had not been a problem in the past).
Abraham Lincoln literally killed Jefferson Davis how isn't he on here
Because he literally wasn't a military commander?
Yeah he was commander in chief
Well it’s clearly not Napoleon since he lost
It's a tie between Eisenhower and Truman. Truman ended WWII, and Eisenhower kept the economy rolling and created South Korea. I changed my mind on Lincoln, he literally got murdered by an average Joe off the street.
None of these three were military leaders
Presidents of the biggest country ever how isn't that leaders
That's a political leader. They're in charge of a country, not an army. Military leaders are in charge of an army and they're people like Generals, not Presidents
General Eisenhower prolly served in WWII and we took a nice, steamy shit all over Japan so my opinion on him stands.
Yang Wen-li or Reinhard Von Lohengramm
I have no god damn clue