Poll
Question:
Who was the reatest Military Commander Before the Industrial Age?
Option 1: Alexander the Great
votes: 6
Option 2: Hannibal
votes: 2
Option 3: Scipio Africanus
votes: 0
Option 4: Qin Shi Huang
votes: 0
Option 5: Chandragupta Maurya
votes: 0
Option 6: Julius Caesar
votes: 4
Option 7: Belisarius
votes: 1
Option 8: Khalid the Sword
votes: 0
Option 9: Subutai
votes: 3
Option 10: Tamerlane
votes: 0
Option 11: Yi Sun Shin
votes: 1
Option 12: Gustavus Adolphus
votes: 0
Option 13: Fredrick the Great
votes: 2
Option 14: Nelson
votes: 3
Option 15: Napoleon
votes: 8
Now, I'm sure to get bitched out for leaving X_historical figure off the list, or putting Y_historical figure on it, but that's half the fun.
Tried to make it not so Eurocentric, but I'm sure I missed some worthy Eastern contenders.
Yi Sun-Shin probably faced the worst odds and the most interference by the royal government.
I'll go with sheer amount of territory conquered/devastated and vote for Subutai. I'm aware it's by no means the best metric but it's really hard to compare those.
Alexander the Great
In terms of historical impact it's hard to argue against Alexander.
In terms of doing very well when the odds are clearly stacked against you, I nominate Janos Hunyadi. The country he was protecting was way too divided and decentralised to be willing to put up a united front, so he never had the full backing which MIGHT had given him a chance, yet he inflicted defeat after defeat on the Ottomans, culminating in his successful defense of Belgrade.
He had bought Hungary a generation worth of time, it was not his fault the aristocracy refused to use it.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hunyadi.html
Also, not sure what Nelson is doing in that list tbf. And no, it's not sour grapes :lol:
He has probably just two? major victories under his belt, one of which he didn't survive. Heck, I'd rate Wellington above him in overall performance during the Napoleonic wars.
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2016, 03:41:24 AM
In terms of historical impact it's hard to argue against Alexander.
In terms of doing very well when the odds are clearly stacked against you, I nominate Janos Hunyadi. The country he was protecting was way too divided and decentralised to be willing to put up a united front, so he never had the full backing which MIGHT had given him a chance, yet he inflicted defeat after defeat on the Ottomans, culminating in his successful defense of Belgrade.
He had bought Hungary a generation worth of time, it was not his fault the aristocracy refused to use it.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hunyadi.html
wasnt his father Serbian? Too black a mark, I'm afraid.
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 03:59:15 AM
Also, not sure what Nelson is doing in that list tbf. And no, it's not sour grapes :lol:
He has probably just two? major victories under his belt, one of which he didn't survive. Heck, I'd rate Wellington above him in overall performance during the Napoleonic wars.
Maybe true. Drake vs. the Armada was likely more of a key victory. :P
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2016, 04:08:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2016, 03:41:24 AM
In terms of historical impact it's hard to argue against Alexander.
In terms of doing very well when the odds are clearly stacked against you, I nominate Janos Hunyadi. The country he was protecting was way too divided and decentralised to be willing to put up a united front, so he never had the full backing which MIGHT had given him a chance, yet he inflicted defeat after defeat on the Ottomans, culminating in his successful defense of Belgrade.
He had bought Hungary a generation worth of time, it was not his fault the aristocracy refused to use it.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hunyadi.html
wasnt his father Serbian? Too black a mark, I'm afraid.
As the badass article mentions, it's not certain :P As with several historical figures who were born in the territory of Hungary and fought/contributed to the Hungarian state/culture, he is claimed by at least one other nationalities from within the old border.
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 03:59:15 AM
Also, not sure what Nelson is doing in that list tbf. And no, it's not sour grapes :lol:
He has probably just two? major victories under his belt, one of which he didn't survive. Heck, I'd rate Wellington above him in overall performance during the Napoleonic wars.
The Nile, Copenhagen, & Trafalgar
Thought the navy deserved some recognition on the list, so I picked him and Yi. Who would you have picked instead?
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2016, 04:11:09 AM
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2016, 04:08:47 AM
Quote from: Tamas on September 06, 2016, 03:41:24 AM
In terms of historical impact it's hard to argue against Alexander.
In terms of doing very well when the odds are clearly stacked against you, I nominate Janos Hunyadi. The country he was protecting was way too divided and decentralised to be willing to put up a united front, so he never had the full backing which MIGHT had given him a chance, yet he inflicted defeat after defeat on the Ottomans, culminating in his successful defense of Belgrade.
He had bought Hungary a generation worth of time, it was not his fault the aristocracy refused to use it.
http://www.badassoftheweek.com/hunyadi.html
wasnt his father Serbian? Too black a mark, I'm afraid.
As the badass article mentions, it's not certain :P As with several historical figures who were born in the territory of Hungary and fought/contributed to the Hungarian state/culture, he is claimed by at least one other nationalities from within the old border.
can't take the chance, sorry :console:
Although Hungary does have an interesting history. I remember going on a binge a few years ago and reading as much as I could.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 06, 2016, 04:12:22 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 03:59:15 AM
Also, not sure what Nelson is doing in that list tbf. And no, it's not sour grapes :lol:
He has probably just two? major victories under his belt, one of which he didn't survive. Heck, I'd rate Wellington above him in overall performance during the Napoleonic wars.
The Nile, Copenhagen, & Trafalgar
Thought the navy deserved some recognition on the list, so I picked him and Yi. Who would you have picked instead?
Yi belongs on that list without discussion. I'd say Barbarossa. Massively successful as both a raider and in winning pitched battles with odds stacked against him. Made the Ottomans dominant in the Med for the better half of the XVIth century.
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Seeing as Tamas is pushing Hungarians I'm going to push a Russian. Alexander Suvorov. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if he lived long enough to fight Napoleon. Kutuzov was his student and one of the best anti-Napoleon commanders at the time.
Nelson didn't need more victories when the big one was so decisive.
Quote from: Tyr on September 06, 2016, 04:42:44 AM
Nelson didn't need more victories when the big one was so decisive.
Meh, if "one big decisive battle" is enough, others won bigger victories than Trafalgar. Spruance probably won the Pacific War by himself at Midway.
Anyhow, the Navy languishites will probably know better than me.
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Seeing as Tamas is pushing Hungarians I'm going to push a Russian. Alexander Suvorov. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if he lived long enough to fight Napoleon. Kutuzov was his student and one of the best anti-Napoleon commanders at the time.
Is it me or is he largely forgotten? Given Russian fondness for hyper-nationalistic bruhaha he doesn't seem to be pushed much in the Russian heroic pantheon. Maybe it's because he was never involved in a big existential war like Nappy's invasion or WWII.
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 05:13:29 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Seeing as Tamas is pushing Hungarians I'm going to push a Russian. Alexander Suvorov. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if he lived long enough to fight Napoleon. Kutuzov was his student and one of the best anti-Napoleon commanders at the time.
Is it me or is he largely forgotten? Given Russian fondness for hyper-nationalistic bruhaha he doesn't seem to be pushed much in the Russian heroic pantheon. Maybe it's because he was never involved in a big existential war like Nappy's invasion or WWII.
He's still quite well-known and respected in Russia, though as you say not really mentioned much in the nationalistic rhetoric. Though he may have been an ethnic Finn, anyway (but then, plenty of Russian military comanders were not ethnic Russians).
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 06:18:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 05:13:29 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Seeing as Tamas is pushing Hungarians I'm going to push a Russian. Alexander Suvorov. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if he lived long enough to fight Napoleon. Kutuzov was his student and one of the best anti-Napoleon commanders at the time.
Is it me or is he largely forgotten? Given Russian fondness for hyper-nationalistic bruhaha he doesn't seem to be pushed much in the Russian heroic pantheon. Maybe it's because he was never involved in a big existential war like Nappy's invasion or WWII.
He's still quite well-known and respected in Russia, though as you say not really mentioned much in the nationalistic rhetoric. Though he may have been an ethnic Finn, anyway (but then, plenty of Russian military comanders were not ethnic Russians).
I'd say that the fact that he served during the relatively uninteresting 2nd half of the XVIIIth century plays agains his standing in the pantheon of great military leaders. If he had lived longer and been part of the Napoleonic Wars he'd be much better known and appreciated. I mean, which are his best known campaigns or battles? The Italian Campaign of the War of the 2nd coalition against Revolutionary France?
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean, they had steam engines and everything.
Quote from: The Larch on September 06, 2016, 06:38:52 AM
I'd say that the fact that he served during the relatively uninteresting 2nd half of the XVIIIth century plays agains his standing in the pantheon of great military leaders. If he had lived longer and been part of the Napoleonic Wars he'd be much better known and appreciated. I mean, which are his best known campaigns or battles? The Italian Campaign of the War of the 2nd coalition against Revolutionary France?
That, and the battles of the Russo-Turkish Wars.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2016, 06:55:49 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean, they had steam engines and everything.
No steamships and no railroads involved in the Napoleonic Wars. They were key features in the American Civil War and other conflicts in the 2nd half of19th century . Mass production with interchangeable parts was in its most embryonic form. Given these facts I would bot call the Napoleonic Wars an industrial conflict.
Oh Hell I don't know. The problem with guys like Frederick and Alexander is they got handed top notch military machines and then beat up on clearly inferior opponents.
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2016, 06:55:49 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Yeah, I was kind of thinking the same thing. I mean, they had steam engines and everything.
Yeah, I kinda figured that the Industrial Age began in Britain sometime in the 1760s, and on the continent around 1800; even without automated machinery, some manufacturing sectors were running 24 hours by then.
I think it's a bit unbalanced to try to pinpoint the Industrial Revolution, yet sweep all of antiquity under the same canopy to define Best Evah.
So I will go with Eugene of Savoy. Tough little bastard.
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
Oh Hell I don't know. The problem with guys like Frederick and Alexander is they got handed top notch military machines and then beat up on clearly inferior opponents.
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Gustavus Adolphus inherited a crap army (had been crushed by Poles FFS) and had to create a great army. Caesar's was a product of that famously inept military machine Republican Rome. :)
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2016, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
Oh Hell I don't know. The problem with guys like Frederick and Alexander is they got handed top notch military machines and then beat up on clearly inferior opponents.
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Gustavus Adolphus inherited a crap army (had been crushed by Poles FFS) and had to create a great army. Caesar's was a product of that famously inept military machine Republican Rome. :)
He also inherited a crap country. Left one as well.
Belisarius: the Don Strock of the Byzantine Empire
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 06, 2016, 07:43:42 AMI think it's a bit unbalanced to try to pinpoint the Industrial Revolution, yet sweep all of antiquity under the same canopy to define Best Evah.
We could do a tournament and make brackets for each time period. Say, Classical Era - Late Antiquity/Early Middle Age - High/Late Middle Age - Renaissance/Early Modern. Who's the #1 seed for each bracket?
Quote from: Razgovory on September 06, 2016, 08:39:04 AM
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2016, 08:10:38 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
Oh Hell I don't know. The problem with guys like Frederick and Alexander is they got handed top notch military machines and then beat up on clearly inferior opponents.
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Gustavus Adolphus inherited a crap army (had been crushed by Poles FFS) and had to create a great army. Caesar's was a product of that famously inept military machine Republican Rome. :)
He also inherited a crap country. Left one as well.
:(
Admiral Yi - great leader hobbled by a devastating gambling addiction.
I don't know who to vote for yet. Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar? :hmm:
How about Alexander Caesar or Julius the Great? :unsure: :P
Quote from: lustindarkness on September 06, 2016, 10:14:25 AM
I don't know who to vote for yet. Alexander the Great or Julius Caesar? :hmm:
How about Alexander Caesar or Julius the Great? :unsure: :P
http://www.candywrappermuseum.com/alex.html
:hmm:
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Wasn't it Octavian that fought and won most battles of the civil war?
Quote from: Zanza on September 06, 2016, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Wasn't it Octavian that fought and won most battles of the civil war?
I was about to nominate Marcus Agrippa for that reason. Also qualifies as an Admiral too :menace:
Quote from: Zanza on September 06, 2016, 11:17:12 AM
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
I think I will go with Caesar. He was going up against the greatest army in the area at the time, other Romans, and always won usually against superior odds.
Wasn't it Octavian that fought and won most battles of the civil war?
The one that was fought after Caesar was dead? No that was Agrippa. Nothing against Octavian, big fan, but he was no general.
GENGHIS KHAN
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 06, 2016, 09:52:16 AM
Admiral Yi - great leader hobbled by a devastating gambling addiction.
No. Small penis.
Andrea Doria was cooler than Nelson. YOUNG PEOPLE SUCK
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 06, 2016, 09:52:16 AM
Admiral Yi - great leader hobbled by a devastating gambling addiction.
"All I ask is a water bong, and a karaoke mic to steer her by."
Depends on level of military command. Strategic, operational or tactical genius?
If operational, my money is on Napoleon any day of the week. Yes, there are a few blemishes on his record on the strategic level (and the hundred days were a mess), but over the span of his 22-year career (Toulon to Waterloo) operationally he shines. He routinely put his army in positions to win the coming battles against superior opponents. Perhaps most importantly he may be the leader that has been scrutinized and vilified the most by his opponents. Perfect he ain't, but he was damned good.
Quote from: Valmy on September 06, 2016, 07:23:37 AM
Oh Hell I don't know. The problem with guys like Frederick and Alexander is they got handed top notch military machines and then beat up on clearly inferior opponents.
in both cases, they pushed it a bit further. Alexander's tacticts against the Scythes was unheard of at the time, and I don't think you'd see infantry advancing with artillery support until much later in time, when European armies had access to canons.
Alexander also inovated with his cavalry flanking manoeuvers, something not usually done.
And there's that battle in India where he had some of his troops march up&down the river to make it think he hadn't already crossed.
I say Alexander is the most impressive of the bunch I know of. The asian guys, I don't know them very well, so I can't judge.
If naval leaders were military rather than naval, i'd vote Yi. As it is, i will restrict myself to the question and vote Napoleon. Not only was he a great commander on the battlefield and in the field, he was a military innovator on a scale not matched by the others.
Yeah. He taught the French to surrender.
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 06, 2016, 09:52:16 AM
Admiral Yi - great leader hobbled by a devastating gambling addiction.
I voted for Yi, give our hometown boy a chance.
Quote from: 11B4V on September 06, 2016, 11:52:39 AM
GENGHIS KHAN
Want to vote for the Mongols, chose Subutai. -_-
Voted Napoleon with KiW a close second.
What About Greatest Industrial Nation Before Napoleon? :bowler: :frog:
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 06:18:08 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 06, 2016, 05:13:29 AM
Quote from: Solmyr on September 06, 2016, 04:40:58 AM
What's considered "the Industrial Age"? Nelson and Napoleon could be considered part of it.
Seeing as Tamas is pushing Hungarians I'm going to push a Russian. Alexander Suvorov. It's interesting to speculate what would have happened if he lived long enough to fight Napoleon. Kutuzov was his student and one of the best anti-Napoleon commanders at the time.
Is it me or is he largely forgotten? Given Russian fondness for hyper-nationalistic bruhaha he doesn't seem to be pushed much in the Russian heroic pantheon. Maybe it's because he was never involved in a big existential war like Nappy's invasion or WWII.
He's still quite well-known and respected in Russia, though as you say not really mentioned much in the nationalistic rhetoric. Though he may have been an ethnic Finn, anyway (but then, plenty of Russian military comanders were not ethnic Russians).
It really does seem bizarre that a man of Suvorov's talent and winning record goes so unnoticed outside of certain circles.
Quote from: mongers on September 06, 2016, 08:41:45 PM
What About Greatest Industrial Nation Before Napoleon? :bowler: :frog:
Egypt.
Epaminondas
Grumbler
Quote from: HVC on September 06, 2016, 09:26:54 PM
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2016, 09:12:14 PM
Epaminondas
Quote from: PDH on September 06, 2016, 09:12:14 PM
Epaminondas
i agree. Damn tastie.
No shit. Wife made a big batch a couple days ago. That's like my lunch every weekday for the foreseeable future :)
Grumblercus Scrotus Testicles Maximus
I doubt if Qin Shi Huang is a military commander.
Quote from: Habbaku on September 06, 2016, 08:45:25 PM
It really does seem bizarre that a man of Suvorov's talent and winning record goes so unnoticed outside of certain circles.
Suvorov was a kook whose insanity motivated Russian troops but makes for difficult reading. One of his famous encounters with soldiers came when he went to a soldier on sentry duty and asked "how many stars are in the sky." When the soldier answered "I don't know, sir, but I will count them now and find out," Suvorov was delighted. True, the soldier was trying to find an answer on his own, but the question was meaningless and the conversion of a sentry to someone whose attention was focused on a hopeless task shows a bizarre set of priorities.
Suvorov famously disdained firepower and wanted his soldiers trained to charge wit the bayonet at every opportunity. Modern warfare was beyond him. He was good against the Turks, but was successful against modern militaries only where he had superior numbers.
In short, a great commander for the tasks he faced, but not necessarily a great commander in the context of other great commanders.
There's hundreds and hundreds.
Just noticed that horrific typo. :bleeding:
Wallenstein! :wub:
Quote from: The Minsky Moment on September 07, 2016, 04:17:15 PM
Quote from: Peter Wiggin on September 06, 2016, 08:48:53 PM
Quote from: mongers on September 06, 2016, 08:41:45 PM
What About Greatest Industrial Nation Before Napoleon? :bowler: :frog:
Egypt.
India
India might be in the competition, but I recall Paul Kennedy making a pretty good case that it was China, in
The Rise and Fall...
It could go either way but I think "India" has a higher share of industrial output by the 18th century, driven by the textile industry. In a relative sense, Chinese industry under the Song may have been more impressive, but in absolute terms 18th century India probably wins out.
18th century UK?
But 18th century wasn't a unified country, but China was at that time. So China wins.
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
From absolute zero? No. From crap? Yes.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
The French Army under napoleon looked much different than it looked before him: permanent corps level organization (the first anywhere), regularized unit strength, centralized artillery and cavalry, combinations of light and line infantry all the way from corps level to battalion level, a regular replacement and training system, rational military schools, permanent regulations, and more. His was probably the first thoroughly-thought-out national army organization.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
The French Army under napoleon looked much different than it looked before him: permanent corps level organization (the first anywhere), regularized unit strength, centralized artillery and cavalry, combinations of light and line infantry all the way from corps level to battalion level, a regular replacement and training system, rational military schools, permanent regulations, and more. His was probably the first thoroughly-thought-out national army organization.
In France?
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
The French Army under napoleon looked much different than it looked before him: permanent corps level organization (the first anywhere), regularized unit strength, centralized artillery and cavalry, combinations of light and line infantry all the way from corps level to battalion level, a regular replacement and training system, rational military schools, permanent regulations, and more. His was probably the first thoroughly-thought-out national army organization.
In France?
Yes, this happened in France.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 03:13:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
The French Army under napoleon looked much different than it looked before him: permanent corps level organization (the first anywhere), regularized unit strength, centralized artillery and cavalry, combinations of light and line infantry all the way from corps level to battalion level, a regular replacement and training system, rational military schools, permanent regulations, and more. His was probably the first thoroughly-thought-out national army organization.
In France?
Yes, this happened in France.
OK. I'm not an expert on French army organization under the monarchy.
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 03:13:33 PM
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2016, 02:37:08 PM
Quote from: grumbler on September 08, 2016, 02:27:34 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 08, 2016, 01:36:01 PM
Someone dissed Alex for not building his own army from scratch, but looking through the list I don't see anyone who did.
The French Army under napoleon looked much different than it looked before him: permanent corps level organization (the first anywhere), regularized unit strength, centralized artillery and cavalry, combinations of light and line infantry all the way from corps level to battalion level, a regular replacement and training system, rational military schools, permanent regulations, and more. His was probably the first thoroughly-thought-out national army organization.
In France?
Yes, this happened in France.
And all across the continent, even in Russia for a little while.
Hell is a place where Russia always happens.
Quote from: Monoriu on September 07, 2016, 03:02:50 AM
I doubt if Qin Shi Huang is a military commander.
Nominate a Chinese replacement then. There has to be someone worthy of at least being on the list from there.
Also, trolling Wikipedia, this guy looks like a decent candidate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nader_Shah
Quote from: The Brain on September 06, 2016, 12:13:49 PM
Andrea Doria was cooler than Nelson. YOUNG PEOPLE SUCK
Andrea Doria is that a pizza or pasta? :P
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2016, 12:39:11 AM
Nominate a Chinese replacement then. There has to be someone worthy of at least being on the list from there.
Sun Tzu
Fuck that guy. Hack. Lin Biao, before he was suicided.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2016, 12:39:11 AM
Nominate a Chinese replacement then. There has to be someone worthy of at least being on the list from there.
Sun Tzu
Sun Tzu and Hector are both up there,
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 09, 2016, 11:26:04 AM
Lin Biao, before he was suicided.
Probably the best choice of the unambiguously non-mythical Chinese military commanders.
Quote from: The Brain on September 08, 2016, 03:37:47 PM
Hell is a place where Russia always happens.
Hell is other Russians.
Quote from: grumbler on September 09, 2016, 12:06:27 PM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 09, 2016, 11:26:04 AM
Lin Biao, before he was suicided.
Probably the best choice of the unambiguously non-mythical Chinese military commanders.
Unlike the rest of them, we actually possess substantial photographic evidence.
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2016, 12:39:11 AM
Nominate a Chinese replacement then. There has to be someone worthy of at least being on the list from there.
Sun Tzu
Should Calusewitz be on the list too?
The candidate should have won multiple major battles if not wars.
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2016, 09:24:00 PM
Quote from: Zanza on September 09, 2016, 11:00:22 AM
Quote from: jimmy olsen on September 09, 2016, 12:39:11 AM
Nominate a Chinese replacement then. There has to be someone worthy of at least being on the list from there.
Sun Tzu
Should Calusewitz be on the list too?
The candidate should have won multiple major battles if not wars.
Quoted to immortalize the spelling error.
Didn't Calusewitz fight in the Nalopeonic wars?
Quote from: celedhring on September 11, 2016, 09:17:41 AM
Didn't Calusewitz fight in the Nalopeonic wars?
I think he was a colonel in the Purssian army.
Quote from: grumbler on September 11, 2016, 09:23:21 AM
Quote from: celedhring on September 11, 2016, 09:17:41 AM
Didn't Calusewitz fight in the Nalopeonic wars?
I think he was a colonel in the Purrssian army.
That was Clawswitz von Meowtke.