Hitler vs. Napoleon vs. Caesar

Adolf Hitler vs. Napoleon Boneparte vs. Julius Caesar. Each leader has 5,000,000 men, equipped with sabres and guns up to American Civil War standards. They all know how this weaponry works, and start off in their respective countries (Germany, France, Italy), and the goal of each leader is to collect all three. There are no allies or outside influences. Who conquers?

I'm going with Napoleon since he was powerful enough to almost take over the World. Hitler only killed a bunch of jews. Julius I aint heard much of him.

@ComicVinE_CLOWN: dude... your avatar is going to give me nightmares.

@Scarbearer: Wasn't trying to give anybody nightmares. I just thought it would be funny.

Adolf Hitler wasn't a good war strategist, Napoleon will win this.

I'm going with Napoleon since he was powerful enough to almost take over the World. Hitler only killed a bunch of jews. Julius I aint heard much of him.

Veni Vici Vidi.

Hitlers over rated, Napolean wins

@god_spawn said:

Veni Vidi Vici.

:)

Hitlers over rated, Napolean wins

@ComicVinE_CLOWN: Oh no it's ok. it's totally my irrational fear of clowns.

Back on topic, Hitler was a very good propagandist, who was lucky enough to have some /very/ skilled generals working for him. I don't think he'll be effective assuming personal command. Napoleon really started to pave the way towards modern warfare with the ways in which he change thinking about how you could use a canon on the battlefield. Julius Ceaser I think could do less with more, so if they have equitable resources I think he is capable of leading his troops to victory

@cattlebattle said:

Hitlers over rated, Napolean wins

really?? it was needed EEUU, URSS, great britain, france and a lot of countries to beat him, and he is overrated??.... damn i think american schools doestn explain history the way it should be.

@demifiend said:

@cattlebattle said:

Hitlers over rated, Napolean wins

really?? it was needed EEUU, URSS, great britain, france and a lot of countries to beat him, and he is overrated??.... damn i think american schools doestn explain history the way it should be.

LOL, the end of your statement is ironic. It wasn't Hitler alone against all these countries, he had a whole government full of officials, he was just the "face" of Nazi Germany...similar to the President of the US....or any country for that matter...if you think one guy runs everything you should get your head checked...Hitler was a moron who couldn't even get into art school, after he painted the Virgin Mary with poo poo (true story). He couldn't even gain a great margin in the polls even with his competition getting assassinated, people think more of him than he actually was

@cattlebattle said:

@demifiend said:

i dont know what is the relation  between arts and war, please explain.  do you think napoleon won thoses batlle by himself?? he had officials too, my friend. a lot of them.  russians by himself  beat napoleon. germany.. well you know, thats was third reich vs a lot of countries.  by feats nazi germany>>>> napoleon france.

Caeser

@god_spawn: @god_spawn said:

Veni Vici Vidi.

you have it scrambled, its Veni, Vidi, Vici.

but julius did have quite a rep on him.

Hitler Holds my respect HOLD before anyone accuses me of anything!... i do not agree/like/approve of what he did in terms of the Holocaust. he only has my respect because the man was tenacious, and he was a good battle strategist (at the beginning of the war) he allied himself with common partners, and would have conquered plenty if he hadnt struck at stalin. The man should have known you cant win a war on all sides.... just consider: the size of: Germany... now think about all they did. that takes guts, tenacity and a certain kind of manipulation. HOWEVER he effed up royally by putting the intellect to such waste.

Not just that, but The SS was a badass boy band.

I dont see how julius would even fathom the concept of a gun.

i guess Napoleon and Hitler would be the last two standing.

@demifiend: american schools? lol

@demifiend said:

@cattlebattle said:

@demifiend said:

@cattlebattle said:

Hitlers over rated, Napolean wins

really?? it was needed EEUU, URSS, great britain, france and a lot of countries to beat him, and he is overrated??.... damn i think american schools doestn explain history the way it should be.

LOL, the end of your statement is ironic. It wasn't Hitler alone against all these countries, he had a whole government full of officials, he was just the "face" of Nazi Germany...similar to the President of the US....or any country for that matter...if you think one guy runs everything you should get your head checked...Hitler was a moron who couldn't even get into art school, after he painted the Virgin Mary with poo poo (true story). He couldn't even gain a great margin in the polls even with his competition getting assassinated, people think more of him than he actually was

i dont know what is the relation between arts and war, please explain. do you think napoleon won thoses batlle by himself?? he had officials too, my friend. a lot of them. russians by themselves beat napoleon. germany.. well you know, thats was third reich vs a lot of countries. by feats nazi germany>>>> napoleon france.

I agree with eveything you said, but the Russians are a Very formidable fighting force. they could out do the Third Reich, Napoleon and Julius together.

@nickthedevil: I scrambled it on purpose, part of a joke my friends got but I actually messed up the initial joke so nvm lol.

Couple quick notes: The russians beat Napoleon because of the extreme cold. His forces weren't used to it, and theres were. It's come up in several wars, the Finnish have won battles simply because they invented the sauna. Also, ancient Rome had crossbows -- not at all different from firearms. He gets knowledge of how guns work, and the tactics would be the same as the projectile weapons he already had.

@demifiend: Really? half Norwegian here. i'm aiming to go when I'm donne with fall semester classes. but no you said it right. its just funny seeing how American schools are looked down upon. hahaha.

@god_spawn: oh. my bad.

@Joygirl: i realized that the way i worded it was badly written. sorry, I meant for it that Julius' type of warfare was totally different from Napoleons and third reich's. giving him guns would mess the guy up. most of the Roman infantry were Gladius weilders and spears. The archers were less in number, and held back.

Ah, right, I see. Fortunately the troops still get sabres, and these are civil war-era weapons and therefore not the best guns in the world. Also, when he discovers this "marvelous new weapon", who knows how his big beautiful tactical brain of his will change his strategy.

@demifiend: from what i hear and see, it's beautiful.

@nickthedevil: No worries, I meant to put Vidi vici veni

@Joygirl: yea, thats still a mystery. it could

A. either Mess up his whole grasp on how to deal with warfare, or

B. He can own everyone here.

@ComicVinE_CLOWN: Dude. i love your avatar. freakin genius. Its horrifying and Hilarious at the same time.

Napoleon, Hittler did nothing that great, he was crazy and wasted a lot of resources killing jews and any other race in front of him, the one reason that he survived that much is because his generals.

Napoleon. Hitler is a schoolgirl compared to him and Caesar.

@slick23 said:

Adolf Hitler wasn't a good war strategist

True, he wasn't. But he had people around him that were.

@ComicVinE_CLOWNsaid:

I'm going with Napoleon since he was powerful enough to almost take over the World. Hitler only killed a bunch of jews. Julius I aint heard much of him.

Toussaint L'overture, a slave, beat back Napoleon and expelled the British and Spanish armies from the colonies with a rag tag bunch of slaves. Just putting that out there.

With that said I'd either go with Napoleon or Julius.

It always seems to be the seemingly insignificant parties that beat back world powers though. Slaves, barbarians, peasants, etc.

@Joygirl said:

the Finnish have won battles simply because they invented the sauna.

I was gonna say what, but then I figured you must be talking about adaptation to cold, not actually using it for warming up.

I'm actually not sure how they used them, I just know they used them to win. Who'da thunkit.

For washing up and maybe for a morale boost.

Napoleon and Hitler didn't conquer GB - Cesar did. 
Rome didn't really losed "The War", they've won and thier politics crushed their own country.
 
Cesar wins it pretty easily IMO, Hitler and Napoleon are close to each other.

@god_spawn said:

Veni Vici Vidi.

LOL..

@Joeybagad0nutz said:

Caeser

stomps

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

Alexander - I agree, he was the best of all. But this Khalid? I've heard about him first time. I would rather put Genghis Khan above these people.

Genghis and Tamerlane were both pretty intelligent but they were also bloodlusted yahoos,i don't know but i find those guys creepy.Walid was the general of Umar(the second Caliph of Islam),he was undefeated in battle(100 victories i think)

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

Alexander - I agree, he was the best of all. But this Khalid? I've heard about him first time. I would rather put Genghis Khan above these people.

Genghis and Tamerlane were both pretty intelligent but they were also bloodlusted yahoos,i don't know but i find those guys creepy.Walid was the general of Umar(the second Caliph of Islam),he was undefeated in battle(100 victories i think)

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

Alexander - I agree, he was the best of all. But this Khalid? I've heard about him first time. I would rather put Genghis Khan above these people.

Genghis and Tamerlane were both pretty intelligent but they were also bloodlusted yahoos,i don't know but i find those guys creepy.Walid was the general of Umar(the second Caliph of Islam),he was undefeated in battle(100 victories i think)

Maybe, but I belive that we both agree that Alexander was best of them. Besides, I see him at one of people who was ruler of the most large country and was pretty much unbeatable. Second one is Julius Cesar. Others had to small victories or didn't won "their war".

Wait Tamerlane and Genghis did'nt win their wars?Walid defeated the Byzantines and the Persians,he was actually removed by Umar because people were putting him on a godly status.(agree on Alexander).

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

@czarny_samael666 said:

@entropy_aegis said:

Alexander the Great and Khalid bin Walid solo all 3.

Alexander - I agree, he was the best of all. But this Khalid? I've heard about him first time. I would rather put Genghis Khan above these people.

Genghis and Tamerlane were both pretty intelligent but they were also bloodlusted yahoos,i don't know but i find those guys creepy.Walid was the general of Umar(the second Caliph of Islam),he was undefeated in battle(100 victories i think)

Maybe, but I belive that we both agree that Alexander was best of them. Besides, I see him at one of people who was ruler of the most large country and was pretty much unbeatable. Second one is Julius Cesar. Others had to small victories or didn't won "their war".

Wait Tamerlane and Genghis did'nt win their wars?Walid defeated the Byzantines and the Persians,he was actually removed by Umar because people were putting him on a godly status.(agree on Alexander).

Napolean wins he's a general hitler is not unless hitler get's generals on his side he loses.

@Scarbearer: I believe you're right. Napoleon is the best among these three, but he had some issues concerning the nature of his decisions, if you know what I mean. So, Julius or Napoleon...don't know. They were both great in their time...

Hard to compare these leaders in this situation. Caesar has never seen firearms and so would not know how to arrange his troops. Hitler and the Nazis relied on their advanced engineering and mechanics; they had the best tanks and for most of the war had the best navy and airforces as well. With only troops and oldschool rifles they would be in a similar situation as Caesar, out of their element. The weapons described are similar to what Napoleon would have used, so his strategies and tactics could be applied with little need for alterations. He should take this one with ease. Caesar was a good general as was Napoleon - Hitler was not a general, although he had some great ones working for him, he cannot take credit for the success of the Nazis armies. Between Caesar and Napoleon you have to consider their opponents; I think that England, Prussia, Italy, Spain, Portugal, Austria and Russia during the late 1700s/early 1800s were able to offer the French much more resistance than the Celts and Gauls from 50BC could offer against the Romans. Winner = Napoleon.

@The Incredible Huck: Well thought out, you get a gold star. And yeah... hehe, I specifically didn't include Alexander the Great because he wins too easily. Wanted it to be a GOOD match.