• 95 results
  • 1
  • 2
#1 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

Very simple who do you think is the greatest general of all time up until the first crusade?

I say it is Hannibal Barca or Gaius Marius.

#2 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20446 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander the Great

(if he counts)

"Be water my friend"

#3 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek: why wouldn't he be counted?

#4 Posted by YourNeighborhoodComicGeek (20446 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat: I didn't think he would be ancient. I don't know History that well.

"Be water my friend"

#5 Posted by Imagine_Man15 (1801 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander the Great or Sun Tzu.

#6 Posted by Nova`Prime` (4165 posts) - - Show Bio

@Imagine_Man15 said:

Alexander the Great or Sun Tzu.

Only problem with Sun Tzu many historians believe he didn't really exist and his book on war was a compilation of multiple generals from many different kingdoms.

One of the greatest ancient generals has to be Julius Caesar.

#7 Posted by laflux (17548 posts) - - Show Bio

Gonna go with King David. Hear me out here. Before him, Israel was being consistently bitch slapped by the philistines, who were way more advanced and the most powerful nation in the area. However by the end of David rule they were pretty much bit part players in the politics of the near east. David defeated them consistently as well as the moabites, ammonites, and Arameans, alot of whom had access to high tech weaponry like chariots, iron weaponry etc. David brought them all under tribute, and incorporated there best ideas into his own army. Solomon's kingdom became so wealthy because David literally curb-stomped anyone who would pose a threat and established Israel as one of the great nations of the near east.

Even in his youth he was a great captain. This is what made King Saul so jealous of him in the first place, and what made the Philistine King want to conscript him into his army to fight the Isrealites.

#8 Posted by Nelomaxwell (10707 posts) - - Show Bio

Hannibal was quite the fearsome general

#9 Posted by dccomicsrule2011 (26988 posts) - - Show Bio

Obi-Wan Kenobi:D

#10 Posted by Xanni15 (6758 posts) - - Show Bio

Genghis Khan

#11 Edited by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@Xanni15: after the crusades and he was more of a great administrator and a great leader... The greatest mongol general was Saladin

#12 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek: yea he is before the Romans

#13 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

Motherfreaking Alexander.

#14 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: but he fought a weak and dying persian empire. I think he is one of the greatest tactically but not strategically.

#15 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@AtPhantom: but he fought a weak and dying persian empire. I think he is one of the greatest tactically but not strategically.

I wouldn't call it weak and dying. The empire was on the decline, but it still had wastly greater resources than him and never had a problem of throwing army after army at him as he progressed. Besides, he also fought Greeks, Illyrians, Thracians, Indians and a number of other nations... And none of them actually did more than slow him down. He also displayed a great amount of political skill in ruling his conquered regions for the short time he held them.

If you want to talk strategically weak (relatively of course), talk Hannibal. His basic plan for the war was to enter Italy, win enough battles and watch Rome fold. And when Rome said 'lolno' he found himself unable to adapt and actually press on his strategic advantages. There's an old saying attributed to one of Carthaginians accompanying him that goes "You know, Hannibal, how to gain a victory; you do not know how to use it."

#16 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom: Hannibal had a sound strategy that actually was proving itself to work after Cannae when a lot of southern italian states helped him. However he didn't know the romans were going to be so stubborn.

Yes Persia was still an economic giant and could muster large armies but the only quality troops they had were there cavalry and greek mercenaries. Yes Alexander didn't just beat the Persians, in fact I think his greatest triumph was marching into scythian territory and defeating their nomadic army. O yes Mahrabal. But really Hannibal could not have marched on rome for a couple reasons

1.He didn't have the heavy siege equipment to besiege a city like Rome

2.He had already shown that he was not good at siege warfare (siege of saguntum)

Why I consider Hannibal the greatest is because he faced such overwhelming odds and he left such an impression on the romans that he became like a boogy man to them.

Hannibal has the greatest encirclement in history (Cannae) and one of the greatest ambushes (lake trasimene)

Alexander strategically was good but not great. Darius always dictated where and when the battles would take place.

I think Darius was also Tactically sound (except when he fled from Issus)

but Alexander quality of troops was just so much greater then the Persians that no matter what Darius would do Alexander would defeat him on the field.

Alexander at the Battle of Issus was saved by how cowardly Darius was

#17 Posted by Magethor (1054 posts) - - Show Bio
  • 4th Lubu
  • 3rd Guan Yu
  • 2nd Alexander
  • 1st Genghis
#18 Edited by joeagentofhand1 (4362 posts) - - Show Bio

Sargon of Akkad.

#19 Posted by Kevhunt (113 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@Xanni15: after the crusades and he was more of a great administrator and a great leader... The greatest mongol general was Saladin

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saladin was part of the Islamic empire during the crusades. Which was fought between Europe's Christian Kingdoms and Islamic Nation(s) of the middle east, not the mongols

#20 Posted by ChaosBlazer (3930 posts) - - Show Bio

Genghis Khan and Alexander the Great.

Lots of notable Roman generals, but none of them besides Julius really expanded their empires like Alexander or Genghis did.

#21 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@AtPhantom: Hannibal had a sound strategy that actually was proving itself to work after Cannae when a lot of southern italian states helped him. However he didn't know the romans were going to be so stubborn.

This would be my point. Once his strategic situation shifted, once it became clear that Rome and its allies wouldn't yield, Hannibal was left powerless. He couldn't devise a new strategy to counter Fabius Maximus. Hell, I'm not a military historian, I have no idea what, if anything, Hannibal could have done to force to Romans' hand, but this I still think speaks against him.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Why I consider Hannibal the greatest is because he faced such overwhelming odds and he left such an impression on the romans that he became like a boogy man to them.

Yes, the odds Hannibal faced cannot be overestimated, but then it's not like Alexander ran around on tanks or anything. In nearly every battle he faced, he was outnumbered. He was faced with a host of different situations, tactics, strategies and methods of warfare, and he triumphed over all of them. Hell at Hidaspes, he faced more elephants than Hannibal ever commanded. Yet he still achieved every strategic objective he ever set managed to go through history without actually ever losing a battle.

In some parts of central Asia, people still tell stories about him and call him 'Alexander the accursed'. To be remembered like that after nearly two and a half thousand years, that's powerful.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Alexander strategically was good but not great. Darius always dictated where and when the battles would take place.

I think Darius was also Tactically sound (except when he fled from Issus)

but Alexander quality of troops was just so much greater then the Persians that no matter what Darius would do Alexander would defeat him on the field.

Alexander at the Battle of Issus was saved by how cowardly Darius was

This is rather not true. No matter how good your troops are, a 2 to 1 numerical advantage (At the very least) in a place where the enemy can make use of his numbers (Like at Gaugamela) will see you army annihilated rapidly without some truly inspired tactics. Darius had every chance to win both Issus and Gaugamela, and it is Alexander alone that tipped those odds. On Gaugamela itself, it is true that Darius dictated the terms of the battle, but only because they were in a bloody desert. There was nowhere in the region where Alexander could actually bring any strategic advantage to bear. At Issus though, Alexander is absolutely excused because Darius' decision to move from Miriandrus, where he could make full use of his numbers, to Issus, where he couldn't, was a pretty boneheaded decision and actually made things easier for Alexander. Had he not done that, Alexander would have set a trap for him somewhere else.

On the other hand, the way he dictated the terms at Hidaspes was an absolute masterstroke both tactically and strategically.

#22 Posted by TheSecondOpinion (614 posts) - - Show Bio

Mongol Empire lasted for nearly a hundred years.

#23 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@TheSecondOpinion: Ancient world.

#24 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@Kevhunt: derp moment from me, sorry... I meant Timur

#25 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom said:

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@AtPhantom: Hannibal had a sound strategy that actually was proving itself to work after Cannae when a lot of southern italian states helped him. However he didn't know the romans were going to be so stubborn.

This would be my point. Once his strategic situation shifted, once it became clear that Rome and its allies wouldn't yield, Hannibal was left powerless. He couldn't devise a new strategy to counter Fabius Maximus. Hell, I'm not a military historian, I have no idea what, if anything, Hannibal could have done to force to Romans' hand, but this I still think speaks against him.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Why I consider Hannibal the greatest is because he faced such overwhelming odds and he left such an impression on the romans that he became like a boogy man to them.

Yes, the odds Hannibal faced cannot be overestimated, but then it's not like Alexander ran around on tanks or anything. In nearly every battle he faced, he was outnumbered. He was faced with a host of different situations, tactics, strategies and methods of warfare, and he triumphed over all of them. Hell at Hidaspes, he faced more elephants than Hannibal ever commanded. Yet he still achieved every strategic objective he ever set managed to go through history without actually ever losing a battle.

In some parts of central Asia, people still tell stories about him and call him 'Alexander the accursed'. To be remembered like that after nearly two and a half thousand years, that's powerful.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Alexander strategically was good but not great. Darius always dictated where and when the battles would take place.

I think Darius was also Tactically sound (except when he fled from Issus)

but Alexander quality of troops was just so much greater then the Persians that no matter what Darius would do Alexander would defeat him on the field.

Alexander at the Battle of Issus was saved by how cowardly Darius was

This is rather not true. No matter how good your troops are, a 2 to 1 numerical advantage (At the very least) in a place where the enemy can make use of his numbers (Like at Gaugamela) will see you army annihilated rapidly without some truly inspired tactics. Darius had every chance to win both Issus and Gaugamela, and it is Alexander alone that tipped those odds. On Gaugamela itself, it is true that Darius dictated the terms of the battle, but only because they were in a bloody desert. There was nowhere in the region where Alexander could actually bring any strategic advantage to bear. At Issus though, Alexander is absolutely excused because Darius' decision to move from Miriandrus, where he could make full use of his numbers, to Issus, where he couldn't, was a pretty boneheaded decision and actually made things easier for Alexander. Had he not done that, Alexander would have set a trap for him somewhere else.

On the other hand, the way he dictated the terms at Hidaspes was an absolute masterstroke both tactically and strategically.

True numbers are a great advantage... however they are not as important as quality of troops. Don't get me wrong I consider Alexander one of the greatest ancient generals but not THE greatest. I do not consider him better then a lot of the Roman generals like Gaius Marius, Sulla, and Scipio Africanus.

#26 Posted by RedQueen (1171 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander the Great, Julius Caeser, Genghis Khan and Darius/Xerxes all deserve a mention. Hannibul was good but his losses crossing the Alps were huge.

#27 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@RedQueen: Darius and Xerxes are nothing compared to Cyrus

#28 Edited by Crom-Cruach (8869 posts) - - Show Bio

@laflux said:

Gonna go with King David. Hear me out here. Before him, Israel was being consistently bitch slapped by the philistines, who were way more advanced and the most powerful nation in the area. However by the end of David rule they were pretty much bit part players in the politics of the near east. David defeated them consistently as well as the moabites, ammonites, and Arameans, alot of whom had access to high tech weaponry like chariots, iron weaponry etc. David brought them all under tribute, and incorporated there best ideas into his own army. Solomon's kingdom became so wealthy because David literally curb-stomped anyone who would pose a threat and established Israel as one of the great nations of the near east.

Even in his youth he was a great captain. This is what made King Saul so jealous of him in the first place, and what made the Philistine King want to conscript him into his army to fight the Isrealites.

None of what you boast is supported by historical and archeological evidence. You're stating bible lore. By evidence Israel was at best a small regional power which reached it's height at Salomon's reign with nothing compared to the might of the true empires of the middle-east with city states constantly vying for control. You're describing bible lore full of exaggerations of history and little evidence as facts

See the works of Katell Bertholot, Dan Bahat and Mireille Hadas-Lebel for a good reference on the true kingdom of Israel. @Kevhunt said:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Saladin was part of the Islamic empire during the crusades. Which was fought between Europe's Christian Kingdoms and Islamic Nation(s) of the middle east, not the mongols

One of the Islamic empires, who would actually fight against the mongols afterward. He was the founder of the Ayyubid dynasty in Syria, Palestine and Egypt. By the time Saladin came along there were at least half a dozen powerful islamic kingdoms in the middle-east.

Moving on.

If you want to talk about success as your measuring stick. Nobody holds a candle to Ghengis Khan, he conquered the largest land empire in the world with nothing but nomadic steppe horse archers. Crushed no less the 6 empires, without one out completely. He brought the chinese kingdoms to their knees and then turn around and stormed accross Eastern Europe and was only stopped near Vienna and in the middle-east by the Turks.

But that's not the ancient world since the ancient world is everything before the fall of the roman empire as far as historians go.

@ChaosBlazer said:

Lots of notable Roman generals, but none of them besides Julius really expanded their empires like Alexander or Genghis did.

Scipion Africanus who conquered the entire north African region and Trajan who pushed the empire to it's farthest expansion while fighting wars and uprisings on three fronts disagree.

#29 Posted by slacker the hacker (7820 posts) - - Show Bio

Were does Vlad The Imapler stand.

#30 Posted by sabracadabra (628 posts) - - Show Bio

I would say Aleaxander, but if Julius Ceasar had not been assasinated, he would have possibly surpaassed aleaxander.At the time of ceasar's death, he had already drawn up plans to conquer parts of eastern europe and Parthia.(ancient rome's biggest rival.)

Online
#31 Posted by Shotgun (900 posts) - - Show Bio

Ghengis Khan conquered in 7 years the same amount of territory that the Romans conquered in 200 years.

#32 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

True numbers are a great advantage... however they are not as important as quality of troops. Don't get me wrong I consider Alexander one of the greatest ancient generals but not THE greatest. I do not consider him better then a lot of the Roman generals like Gaius Marius, Sulla, and Scipio Africanus.

I honestly fail to see how any of them even hold a candle to Alexander. Or Hannibal for that matter.

#33 Posted by TheGoldenOne (38789 posts) - - Show Bio
Alexander.
#34 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom said:

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

True numbers are a great advantage... however they are not as important as quality of troops. Don't get me wrong I consider Alexander one of the greatest ancient generals but not THE greatest. I do not consider him better then a lot of the Roman generals like Gaius Marius, Sulla, and Scipio Africanus.

I honestly fail to see how any of them even hold a candle to Alexander. Or Hannibal for that matter.

Just look at Marius and his battles Battle of Aquae Sextiae and Battle of Vercellae

He wasn't just a master tactician but Marius also changed the roman army into the greatest fighting force of the Ancient World.

Also I forgot Belisarius in that list of Romans.

Scipio Africanus doesn't need to be explained he is the Roman Hannibal.

Alexander may have conquered more land but he did not face opponents like these men.

In fact I don't consider Alexander a better ruler than Cyrus The Great

#35 Posted by GrandSymbiote94 (11724 posts) - - Show Bio

Alexander, Ghengis, or Julius.

#36 Posted by WaveMotionCannon (5696 posts) - - Show Bio
@Xanni15

Genghis Khan

Period.
#37 Posted by AtPhantom (14521 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Just look at Marius and his battles Battle of Aquae Sextiae and Battle of Vercellae

Beating undisciplined barbarians with a roman legion? You're comparing this to Hydaspes and Gaugamela?

Also, the only account we have of those battles at all is from Romans themselves and I wouldn't at all be surprised if they inflated the numbers of the barbarians. The Greeks did it all the time. Hell, at Gaugamela Alexander is said to have faced two million Persians.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

He wasn't just a master tactician but Marius also changed the roman army into the greatest fighting force of the Ancient World.

They didn't seem to have much problem before.

I'm not good on the details, maybe Crom can say more, But Marian reforms focused mainly on increasing the size of the armies (which was limited due to a list of social issues, citizens eligible for military and such). They already had the fighting force element to them.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Scipio Africanus doesn't need to be explained he is the Roman Hannibal.

No, he's not. He defeated Hannibal once, when Hannibal was already worn out from constant trekking through Italy and stonewalling by the Carthaginean government. He never faced the hurdles Hannibal did, and his victories never had the resounding echo Hannibal's and Alexander's had.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Alexander may have conquered more land but he did not face opponents like these men.

These men didn't face opponents like these men. And they never faced what Alexander faced.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

In fact I don't consider Alexander a better ruler than Cyrus The Great

Eh, that's fair.

#38 Posted by krilling (2488 posts) - - Show Bio

Alp Arslan and Genghis Khan.

#39 Posted by Rogan2112 (595 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat: Sal'ah'din (Saladin) wasn't a Mongol, he was an Arab/Muslim General, and yes a true tactical, strategic, and inspirational general. (Sorry Kevhunt, I missed that you said that)

For my money, I'm gonna have to go with Sun Tzu, or possibly Henry V. Sun Tzu was simply a military genius, he didn't just write a book, he wrote the book from the battle tactics, and practices he honed over years of experience, and he started OUT as a general badass in leadership and tactics. Henry V, among other accomplishments, build the best trained and equipped army since the Roman Legion, and through superior strategy, discipline of his soldiers, and proper use of new technologies, defeated a force four times his own number on open ground on their own turf...it wasn't his ONLY accomplishment, just his most impressive.

Everyone has mentioned damn, impressive generals worth noting, and at some point it gets kind of subjective....these are just my two favorites as a student of history, and military history.

Be excellent to each other :)

#40 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@AtPhantom said:

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Just look at Marius and his battles Battle of Aquae Sextiae and Battle of Vercellae

Beating undisciplined barbarians with a roman legion? You're comparing this to Hydaspes and Gaugamela?

Also, the only account we have of those battles at all is from Romans themselves and I wouldn't at all be surprised if they inflated the numbers of the barbarians. The Greeks did it all the time. Hell, at Gaugamela Alexander is said to have faced two million Persians.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

He wasn't just a master tactician but Marius also changed the roman army into the greatest fighting force of the Ancient World.

They didn't seem to have much problem before.

I'm not good on the details, maybe Crom can say more, But Marian reforms focused mainly on increasing the size of the armies (which was limited due to a list of social issues, citizens eligible for military and such). They already had the fighting force element to them.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Scipio Africanus doesn't need to be explained he is the Roman Hannibal.

No, he's not. He defeated Hannibal once, when Hannibal was already worn out from constant trekking through Italy and stonewalling by the Carthaginean government. He never faced the hurdles Hannibal did, and his victories never had the resounding echo Hannibal's and Alexander's had.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

Alexander may have conquered more land but he did not face opponents like these men.

These men didn't face opponents like these men. And they never faced what Alexander faced.

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

In fact I don't consider Alexander a better ruler than Cyrus The Great

Eh, that's fair.

Marian reforms did not just increase the size of the army. They also created a standing army, required soldiers to regularly be drilled and go through training (even in times of peace), standardized equipment, and made people want to join the army through retirement benefits (land). The Roman soldiers before the marian reform had to supply their own weapons and had to own their own land. Marius promoted ability over wealth. A lot of roman disasters were caused by rich fools looking for glory and fame (Crassus).

I do not think Scipio is as good as Hannibal however a lot of people would disagree... It is a lot like the debate of Wellington vs Napoleon.

Marius barbarian opponents had already decimated the romans and had proven their fighting skill at the Battle of Noreia, Battle of Burdigala, and the Battle of Arausio (though most of that was caused by idiotic roman commanders). The Cimbri and the Teutons are great warriors.

I will give credit to Alexander the Battle of Hydaspes was a masterpiece.

Gaugmela was also a masterpiece but it was also extremely risky and if he had been facing a better commander it could have easily backfired ( I remember their being a Persian general that wanted to use scorched earth policy to defeat Alexander I can't remember his name)

Issus and Gaugamela were great victories but Darius was a big reason for that.

Alexander did have his setbacks like the Battle of the Persian Gate.

Personally I didn't like Alexander he destroyed. I don't know why we see the Persians as the bad guys and glorify the Greeks

#41 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@Rogan2112: I meant Timur

#42 Posted by krilling (2488 posts) - - Show Bio

Personally I didn't like Alexander he destroyed. I don't know why we see the Persians as the bad guys and glorify the Greeks

Because of the eurocentristic world view. That's why we see for example Genghiz Khan (who was Asiatic) as a bad guy while we see Caesar or Alexander as goodies.

#43 Posted by JokerTheShining (179 posts) - - Show Bio

Xiaomeng. Mulan doesn't even come close compare to the life Xiaomeng had lived. He's a eunuch, but unlike most eunuch who served the royalty, he had lived a life filled with daring adventures and inhuman tasks that no one at that dark time will ever understood. He's probably not the greatest, nor the most significant, but he carried a mind that's capable of unearthly mentality, carried out task perfectly, no one in that time could possibly understood how someone like him existed, why he didn't choose to live like any other lowly servant that served the rich.

History said he wanted to repay his debt to someone who'd saved his life, how ever his journey took him far beyond than that, and that's when we'll never understand the alien, merciless territory he had tread into, how he sees the world through his eyes.

Skill: Marksman level in archery. Spy. Assassin.

#44 Posted by VercingetorixTheGreat (2823 posts) - - Show Bio

@krilling: Well I don't like Julius Caesar....

#45 Posted by Crom-Cruach (8869 posts) - - Show Bio

Alright rather then quoting a bunch of texts I'll just comment on a few of the names mentionned here and there in this thread. First, Marius he didn't just increased numbers he created the roman curriculum that would create the disciplined force that conquered the Mediterranean (since what the romans conquered was not really close to the world). His reforms transformed the roman army from a part time army of citizens that followed the growingly outdated greek phalanx model into the career legion where a soldier could come to be a ruler by proving himself on the battlefield in doing so he gave the drive to the romans to set out and truly conquere everything they could. This was along to massive improvements to strategy and equipment. Without Marius's reforms Julius Ceasar would never have had the right soldiers to beat the Gauls.

The gauls who by the way, recent research has proven were nowhere near the undisciplined barbarians people make them out to be, but they were not full time soldiers. Big difference. I'll refer everyone to read Rafaele Brillaud's work on the gauls for an accurate view on them. And anyone interested in the reforms of the roman army should read Eric Treguier.

Scipion Africanus is better then Hanibal. He outsmarted and beat him on multiple occasions. He secured Hispania despite the push by Hannibal's dynasty, he defeated Massinissa who's cavalry and disciplined force was a serious threat to Rome at a time when it's supremacy over the meditaranean was uncertain. He help defeat Antiochus III,ensuring roman supremacy over the Grecian region and forever destroying the strength of one of the heir kingdoms of Alexander the great. Not only that but his participation in the war proved once and for all the supremacy of the roman legion over the greek phalanx.

Darius the Great reigned and pushed the Persian to it's height ensuring a stable kingdom that was unparallelled at his time. One of the reasons Alexander won was because Xerxes was nowhere the commander his father was.

#46 Posted by ShootingNova (19126 posts) - - Show Bio

@VercingetorixTheGreat said:

@Xanni15: after the crusades and he was more of a great administrator and a great leader... The greatest mongol general was Saladin

LOL what? You kidding right? Saladin was a Saracen.

Genghis Khan, Alexander the Great were top-tier. Romans were notable at best, but really, their power seemed quite..... shrivelled compared to Khan and Alex.

#47 Posted by superstay (10498 posts) - - Show Bio

Don't know about who was better but my favorites

Alexander the Great

Julias Caesar

Genghis Khan

d^_^b

#48 Posted by ShootingNova (19126 posts) - - Show Bio

@superstay said:

Don't know about who was better but my favorites

Alexander the Great

Julias Caesar

Genghis Khan

d^_^b

Caesar didn't do as much as the other two, and wasn't a personal warrior, IMHO. If the met on the battlefield, he would die first.

#49 Posted by HammerTron (640 posts) - - Show Bio

All the good names were mentioned. How about William the Conqueror? Or Charlamagne?

#50 Posted by TheAcidSkull (18832 posts) - - Show Bio

@YourNeighborhoodComicGeek said:

Alexander the Great

(if he counts)

"Be water my friend"