Who was the greatest commander before the renaissance?

[Zvornik]

I made this poll before and it got move to the VV where everybody's an A hole and all they do is argue...and you can't even vote there!
Anyways, mods please don't move this thread, it is not a debate, just a question. I only associate with M2TW ppl and RTW ppl.
Sooo....who was the greatest? and why?

[Berserk]

IMO, Hannibal. His run from the Iberian peninsula to Italy is legendary, his crossing of the river Rhone and Alps is crazy for his time and he did this without the support of his country. If Carthage would've supported him we probably wouldn't be speaking english.

[ByzantineCaesar]

Megas Alexandros, for the same reasons as stated in the VV thread.

[Desertcavalier]

On that list Ghengis Khan and Khaled Bin Al Waleed are the only ones that never lost a battle, so I guess its between them.

[Silverheart]

I also voted in the first poll, and I gave my motivations there.

And the VV is not so bad, just more... professional.
It is a place where you don´t just leave your opinion, you have to prove it! A place for discussion and debate, in other words (which is probably why it is placed in the Discussion and Debate section)

Anyhow, Alexander was the greatest commander, with Genghis coming in as a close second.

[Zvornik]

And the VV is not so bad, just more... professional.
It is a place where you don´t just leave your opinion, you have to prove it! A place for discussion and debate, in other words (which is probably why it is placed in the Discussion and Debate section)

oh I don't have a problem with people proving their point over there. It's just that everybody's so damn hostile. Professionals don't insult people just because they might not have known something or just because they don't like that person. I duno man, that's not my cup of coffee.

Anyways...this is probably gonna be Genghis vs Alexander.
In my opinion, the great Khan was greater because;
Khan started with absolutely nothing and united many people, Alexander started as son of a King and was given armies (not calling him spoiled or anything)
Khan had much less resources than Alexander
Khan was a master strategist, Alexander was a mediocre strategist
Khans empire was bigger than Alexanders
Khan came from a very poor and weak country, Alexander came from a rich powerful state

anyways I think they're about equal in battle, but Khan gets more of my respect because I and many people can relate to him, he was a poor peasant growing up and he turned into the most feared man in the world

[Silverheart]

oh I don't have a problem with people proving their point over there. It's just that everybody's so damn hostile. Professionals don't insult people just because they might not have known something or just because they don't like that person. I duno man, that's not my cup of coffee.

Anyways...this is probably gonna be Genghis vs Alexander.
In my opinion, the great Khan was greater because;
Khan started with absolutely nothing and united many people, Alexander started as son of a King and was given armies (not calling him spoiled or anything)
Khan had much less resources than Alexander
Khan was a master strategist, Alexander was a mediocre strategist
Khans empire was bigger than Alexanders
Khan came from a very poor and weak country, Alexander came from a rich powerful state

anyways I think they're about equal in battle, but Khan gets more of my respect because I and many people can relate to him, he was a poor peasant growing up and he turned into the most feared man in the world

See, this is the stuff the VV people would have jumped upon (I had an urge too...) because it´s not completely accurate. You have to be careful with what you say, lest it WILL be used against you.
You can´t let someones´ feelings excuse him for making inaccurate statements.

One guy in the VV section presented very good arguments proving that the phalangists of Phillip II didn´t count for squat before Alexander, and exactly how Alexander was better than Genghis, point by point.
It was HIS leadership that made Macedon Rich and Powerful.
So Alexander was greater a commander, even though Genghis is very close.
If you think about it, those two were very alike in several things.

[Zvornik]

You see VV ppl? You can be proving points in a civilized non-hostile manner...there was one guy on here however (Sulphuristical), who did do that VV argument thing (but he's from VV anyway)

See, this is the stuff the VV people would have jumped upon (I had an urge too...) because it´s not completely accurate. You have to be careful with what you say, lest it WILL be used against you.
You can´t let someones´ feelings excuse him for making inaccurate statements.

One guy in the VV section presented very good arguments proving that the phalangists of Phillip II didn´t count for squat before Alexander, and exactly how Alexander was better than Genghis, point by point.
It was HIS leadership that made Macedon Rich and Powerful.
So Alexander was greater a commander, even though Genghis is very close.
If you think about it, those two were very alike in several things.

I appreciate your professionalism, I might have said some things in my post that were not completely accurate, but what I meant with the particular point you mentioned was that Macedonia was definitely more economically gifted than Mongolia, not necessarily rich. But, let's not argue...

[The Source]

wasnt a there a poll exacly like this about 2-3 weeks ago, or maybe im thikin about the Stainlless steel fourm

[Desley]

Sun Tzu without a doubt!

He was far and far more smarter then the people in his time! And many other famous generals used his books as a guide while they were conquering lands!!

[Double A]

VV?

[ByzantineCaesar]

On that list Ghengis Khan and Khaled Bin Al Waleed are the only ones that never lost a battle, so I guess its between them.

Alexander and Belisarius (not sure, I think so) never lost a battle too.

VV?

Vestigia Vetustatis and this was the discussion thread (no polls allowed in VV though).

[Shasqua]

Alexander was a mediocre strategist. His insistence on "defeating the Persian navy by land" could have cost him the war, as an Ionian general in Persian employ (forget the name, but it started with M) planned to land in Greece by sea and, with the help of a lot of money, start a massive Greek rebellion against Alexander, whom most Greeks hated. Luckily for Alex, this general died suddenly before he could initiate his plan.

Khalid ibn al-Walid, however, was a true god of warfare, winning all but one of his hundred-odd battles (the exception was a tie against a far larger, more powerful army). Most of the time, his foes outnumbered him heavily and were better armored, but he routinely crushed them with far fewer losses. Khalid's efforts ultimately annihilated the Sassanid Empire and wiped out all Roman forces in the Middle East.

And Chinggis Khan did lose a battle or two against Jamuqa, his blood brother and former mentor.

[S6k6l6v]

Alexander of course, this isn't even a competition

[Ishan]

Share you thoughts, vote on it etc and that's it if i see any arguments and rant i will close it.

Hannibal Barca for me btw.

[Nosjack]

Share you thoughts, vote on it etc and that's it if i see any arguments and rant i will close it.

Alexander for me btw

[rebelyell2006]

I say Julius Caesar, at least because he managed to conquer the Gauls and his fellow Romans. His books are fascinating to read.

[General500]

Alexander the Great can never be replicated. The man is a legend.

[R3VAN]

I will say its a tie between Ceasar (man was a genious, not so much how much you conquer but how/who), and my write in vote Flavius Belisarius. Guy nearly doubled the empire, won 40 straight victories against numericly and better supplied forces with little/no support from a jealous Emporer. This man truly did more with so much less. His 1 major "loss" ended up nearly decimating the Persian army.

[Noif de Bodemloze]

ummm... does I have seen same kind topic somewhere?