Caesar...provided he has time to adjust to the new technology.
Hitler vs. Napoleon vs. Caesar
wouldn't ceaser's men experience future shock? and possibly Napoleon's ? i mean how would they know how to handle multi shot weapons? i gotta go with if it's a single battle Napoleon but if it's long term Hitler stomps.....
It says in the OP that all of the leaders are FAMILIAR with their weaponry. They have time to adjust to the resources they have. Overall this is a battle of tactical minds.Agree.
Napoleons. Hitler had little military involvement and hasn't got tech for blitzkrieg warfare which gt him so much success in ww2. Ceaser wasn't as directly involved in battle as Nap was.
Napoleon stomps...
Hitler wasn't a good military commander and definitely not a tactical genius (his domineering personality over the generals in decisions regarding the Eastern Front and the western defense against the Allies played a huge role in SHORTENING the war and hastening Germany's defeat.)
Napoleon is a tactical genius especially well-known for his skill at commanding artillery and mobile units.
Caesar just isn't a commander of the caliber of Napoleon. He tended to win battles in which he outnumbered his ennemies... Napoleon on the other hand, continuously prevailed against enemies that outnumbered him until the very end (British, Austrians, Prussians etc).
Hitler was nowhere near as bad as he's often thought as being, he had a certain intuition, ut against Caesar and Napoleon he's outmatched. As for Julius vs bonaparte, I'm going to give caesar a slight edge.
I am giving Napoleon the edge here. Caesar had a lot of diplomatic victories and Hitler was not really much of a general. If allying with other nations/ recruiting from the masses is allowed, then, I would give it to Hitler.
Napoleon was a general, Caesar was a statesman and Hitler was able to motivate a lot of people.
Nether was Napoleon, he made the exact same mistakeAdolf Hitler wasn't a good war strategist, Napoleon will win this.
Napoleon, not by much anyways.
Caesar isn't that good, and, hell, I could be a better strategist than Hitler..
@whydama:
Problem was Hitler wasn't very good at alliances and manipulating civilians in foreign countries either.
He formed an alliance with Japan which bought him nothing except an earlier confrontation against the United States after Pearl Harbor that it needed to be.
Now Japan COULD have been useful to Hitler had he heavily pressured Japan to invade the Soviet Union at around the same time he invaded it. He didn't even try this intuitive move. Hell... he underestimated the Soviets to the point that he didn't want the Japanese to have any ''credit'' in the final defeat of Communism.
Hitler broke his alliance with the Soviets while Great Britain was still standing and still a threat... a good Risk player never does this. You NEVER provoke another giant when you are fighting one already.
Hitler's ultimate fail at manipulating the masses can be seen in his genocidal policies. He drove many of his nation's most brilliant minds (ex Einstein etc) OUT of his country and into countries he would later fight against. By being a dogmatic racist, he lost a TON of opportunities by needlessly pissing people off and driving people out.
In Russia during the initial stages of his campaigns many Russians and Soviet ethnic minorities HATED Stalin and wanted to help the Germans. Instead of taking full advantage of this... Hitler spits in their face and orders his troops to exterminate and enslave them to the max... thus forcing them to fight for Stalin.
You see... Hitler was a terrible strategist and manipulating the masses in times of war and managing alliances were not his strong points.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment