The Great Captains (feat. Sean Chick)

In this episode, Sean and I compare six of the greatest military leaders to ever live. We look specifically at the 1889 list compiled by Theodore Aryault Dodge, a list of six which includes Alexander the Great, Hannibal Barca, Julius Caesar, Gustavus Adolphus, Frederick the Great, and Napoleon.
Patreon link: / thersites
PayPal link: paypal.me/thersites
Spirit of Thersites (Politics Channel): / @spiritofthersites7578
WTFGAS Podcast (Entertainment Channel): / @wtfgaspodcast729
Discord: / discord
Brave Browser: brave.com/noa557
Twitter link: / thersitesathens
Minds.com link: www.minds.com/...
Steemit/dtube link: steemit.com/@t...
BitChute: www.bitchute.c...

[@Свободадляроссии]

Sean comparing every second battle to Shiloh is so hilarious to me

[@FlameQwert]

guy who has clearly been possessed by the spirits of Shiloh after spending months writing a book on it: "damn this is like Shiloh fr"

[@orioni]

Timestamps 0:22:33 Alexander the Great 1:07:26 Hannibal Barca 1:25:07 Julius Caesar 2:05:25 Gustavus Adolphus 2:47:26 Frederick the Great 3:29:03 Napoleon

[@herbthompson8937]

18 mins for Hannibal damm

[@bengerber735]

@@herbthompson8937 They recently did a stream about the Carthaginian generals of the 2nd Punic war. Hannibal gets ~ 40 minutes iirc from them.

[@herbthompson8937]

@@bengerber735 i listened to that as well, it was just funny seeing him only 18 minutes compared to the other guys.

[@bullroarer-took]

@@herbthompson8937 there wasn't much to say about him in this context. Personally I put him above all the others

[@Cyberpunker1088]

Thank you! All of their vids should have time stamps

[@redjirachi1]

Elagablus isn't listed as a great captain only because he never had to serve as Rome; all of Rome's rivals were too scared of incurring his wrath to pressure him into fighting them

[@maidenheaven9621]

facts

[@trentw.3566]

What would Alexander have done with Elagabulus?

[@Belisarius1967]

m

[@seanbeadles7421]

@@trentw.3566😳

[@noodlemaker8700]

Elagabalus smiles down on you.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

He would probably be on his knees looking up tbh

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

@@x.kasiouris5503 Still smiling, though.

[@bullroarer-took]

May he smile on you as well.

[@kylechafin1419]

Would TOTALLY buy some Elagabalus merch!!!!

[@Theodosius_fan]

Alexander is so perfect as a general that people believe that it is to good to be true

[@nickklavdianos5136]

I like to say to people that Alexander was such a talented and great general, that even his personal secretary became a very capable commander in his own right by observing Alexander's battles.

[@Theodosius_fan]

@@nickklavdianos5136 All of his officers were great generals. The had a 40 year civil war and still kept the entire non indian empire. And they even got 500 elefanten for the indian province

[@geordiejones5618]

​@@Theodosius_fandon't forget all of his officers, including himself were trained by Phillip

[@michaelr3583]

2 years later I'm still waiting for that sequel that you were supposed to do next week😅

[@johnmurdoch3083]

Persia was seen as vulnerable after Xenophon's anabasis. It was seen as a wooden titan. The African elephants used in ancient warfare were a smaller, now extinct north african variety, not the ones we know. Indian elephants were larger than these. Alexander was impulsive- he murdered cleitus, had batis dragged through the street, mourned hephaestion in excess, manhandled Cassander in Babylon, and sulked in his tent for days when the troops didnt want to go further on two occasions. The gordian knot anecdote definitely encapsulates his impulsiveness. A brave and byronic hero with all the bad that comes with kt. The US

[@aslanlovett4059]

Not to mention. KILLED PARMENIAN!

[@johnmurdoch3083]

@@aslanlovett4059 cleitus the black being murdered was impulsive and another example more...alobg with the doctor of hephaestion....parmenion, his son, and attalus are realpolitik. Cold blooded and tragic but understandable.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

Not, really the thing is that the Greeks there were just that good when they came to grips with the enemy, it was probably the hardest thing to deal with for the armies of the east and in the case with xenophonni would say it's the comco of the system being basically great alongside with the quality of the soldiers, cause these men were not your average Greek peasant with some basic abilities and knowledge that was levied and called upon to fight the Persian when they invaded, these were mercenaries, battle hundred vets of the Peloponnesian war.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

@@aslanlovett4059 sad but he was kinda forced to, I mean he just had his son killed so I don't really see another way out of it or argueably a more merciful course of action, cause I don't think there could be a Parmenion walks away or a Parmenion continues to serve him faithfully scenario that wouldn't backfire on Alexander.

[@johnmurdoch3083]

@@x.kasiouris5503 something stinks in ancient sources when the greeks can..despite a relatively inflexible and rigid warfare style..were capable of countering easterners and slaying so many of them it it comes off as a comic book or scene from commando. The greeks were good soldiers but they werent impervious either.

[@TheKahn14]

Just a littel correction: Hjalmar Schacht had the highest IQ not Göring. He wasnt a Nazi so the "smartest Nazi" at the Nürmberg trails would be Arthur Seyss-Inquart and then Göring or Dönitz. Frederick II was also the last King IN Purssia as well as the first King OF Prussia.

[@aslanlovett4059]

At least you know your history unlike this so called historian. Only 3 kings in the HRE folks and two of those were imperial titles.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

If it was the case it definitely didn't translate in his rise to power

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

@@aslanlovett4059 I love history pedants. They try so hard.

[@clarkycat9173]

@@aslanlovett4059 literally a marc felton subscriber

[@WWSzar]

Polish kings were using the title King of Prussia since 1466 until 1742, which ironically is longer than the Prussian kings did.

[@okenogamer]

3:32:26 many people seem to be forgetting that Alexander created one of the earliest versions of the corp system for countering spitamenese's guerilla warfare by effective dividing his troops into five divisions made up of different units integrated together under independent command who could operate apart from one another and concentrate into one

[@Cgl3g3nd]

Alexander also is the reason the Chinese beat the nomads after the Chinese fought the war for “heavenly” horses against the greek Bactrian kingdom

[@Account.for.Comment]

Nah. The event is portrayed more as foolishness rather than any triumph. The Chinese won by hiring nomads to kill nomads. scholars-stage.org/what-edward-luttwak-doesnt-know-about-ancient-china-or-a-short-history-of-han-xiongnu-relations-pt-2/

[@josephvitale137]

Hey Thersites! 1:30:45 I think you may be selling Caesar a little short. What makes JC such a formidable general is the fact that he was able to defeat other legions. In fact, he wasn't just beating other legions, he was beating legions of the Imperial army caliber, trained after the Marion reforms... As good as Alexander is/was he was fighting armies that lacked proper armor. Still can't take away from him, the fact that he achieved more in one decade then most could do in a few lifetimes.

[@Getupinthere]

Great stuff Θ and Sean! You never disappoint

[@craniusdominus8234]

By the extended definition of 'captains' (i.e just a commander, not a ruler), I'd probably give Paul Lettow von Vorbeck a nomination, just for the sheer balls out accomplishment of fighting for the entirety of WW1 on his own, with a ramshackle force, cut off from supplies, in Africa, lasting longer than the entire rest of the Central Powers, and still not being defeated. And Giap and Ho Chi Min would probably qualify. They fought the Japanese, the French, the Americans and the Chinese in the space of four decades, and they came out on top.

[@RodolfoGaming]

Definently agree about the lion of Africa, don't know enough to agree with the others but probably yes as well

[@jamesmckenzie9551]

I think the problem with the last two is that they could have been crushed if the militaries tackling them weren’t so heavily restrained by international laws and such, as well as half/hearted commitment.

[@kilpatrickkirksimmons5016]

@@jamesmckenzie9551 I've gotta give you a thumbs up because you are right. Especially in the American phase, which is the unsung proof positive that air power alone cannot win wars: you have to invade in the end. But the length of time they were able to take a beating against a series of way more powerful countries is worthy of considerable respect.

[@thoughtfulpug1333]

Giap may be a contender. The era of captains dwindles down as wars get less symmetrical.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

Additional Great captain candidates: Jan Zizka, Pyrhus of Epirus, Antigonus the one eyed, John Hunyadi, Mikail the Brave, Nikephoros Phokas, Belissarius and Heraclius (not sure about Barbarossa)

[@bullroarer-took]

I would add Scipio Africanus, Marcus Agrippa, and Mohammad (though his ability is possibly exaggerated, if it isn't he was definitely a great captain)

[@x.kasiouris5503]

@@bullroarer-took I don't think Scipio and aggrippa can classify as for mohhamad sorry but I chuckled, he belongs to an entirely different kind of list, what we know of his accomplishments isn't really a big deal let alone that the man is shrouded in mystery, personally I excluded antiochus just cause we have no clue about is accomplishments to the far east.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

@@bullroarer-took could you tell me why would you consider him a great captain (Mohhamd) like his impact in history is undisputed, but he just a minor warlord who was successful due to the situation in Arabia and his religious preaches, I would not even call him great general material let alone great captain. It strikes a sa really over the top and kinda revisionist view of his figure, cause remember his apeal was religious and the fewunrialble things we know it's basically petty skrimished with Devine intervention for the most part let alone the defeats

[@bullroarer-took]

@@x.kasiouris5503 yes dude fair enough. Too much mystery for sure to tell

[@bullroarer-took]

@@x.kasiouris5503 I just thought I'd throw an oddball candidate in there. Gotta keep you on your toes! 😜

[@mugluvin3300]

Sean was correct African bush elephants are larger than Indian ones but the African forest Elephants that say the Carthaginians were using were smaller than Indian Elephants so that’s probably were the confusion came from.

[@mugluvin3300]

Oh my apologies Thersites, I see you were already told this during the stream. Serves me right for slapping my keyboard before the video had even finished.

[@danielwallace1759]

I'm struggling to think of an event in history that is as absurd and had as low of a chance of occurring as the Miracle of the House of Brandenburg. People would ridicule it's inclusion if it were in a work of fiction.

[@bengerber735]

Completely. It sounds like bad alt-history.

[@bengerber735]

And is that a bichon? So cute!

[@Account.for.Comment]

Try Liu Bang rose to become emperor. It was romanticised but it is true real-life picaresque.

[@danielwallace1759]

@@bengerber735 That is a bichon indeed. Thanks!

[@seanmac1793]

Yeah if it wasn't actual history I'd call it the laziest Deus Ex Machina ever

[@coryfritz9198]

I heard Shaun taking a dab!!! Lmao

[@nestorvargas2399]

Sorta related to those Charles of Lorraine jokes. During the Mexican revolution, a major general and future president Alvaro Obregon beat Pancho Villa, a old fashion calvary commander, at the huge battle of Celaya, very one sided casualties. During his report to his then-president Carranza, he said something like "Fortunately, Villa was there to lead the army in person"

[@aslanlovett4059]

It was the first serious time Villa's frontal charge of massed horse didn't take the day. Unluckly for him old OneArm held like Wellington against Ney. The battles closest analogy is Waterloo which the Prussians and the Brits won because of Bonny's hemeroids. RIP Madero

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

It’s hard not to acknowledge the brilliance in Villa as a specifically insurgent commander, mixing political/policy manipulation of both the US and Mexican gov’ts with PR in his power-base of the North. Raising one of the best military forces on the continent for a time. This is before the Russian revolution and civil war, before much of warlord-era China. He’s not unprecedented, even within just Mexico - but he (along with Zapata) is an important case-study in such conflicts over large geographical areas, which is its own subsection of civil conflict that isn’t often understood for its distinct realities separate from other types of civil conflict.

[@geesixnine]

Can you guys do Naval Captains next?

[@kingusernamelxixthemagnificent]

I'd love to see you do a collab with Atun-Shei.

[@dirlexx9771]

No, Sean right. He cringe

[@dirlexx9771]

@@ii121 he seems to bash the south a lot. I just thought he was cringe

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

@@dirlexx9771 He cites his sources, and I appreciate him using the actual comments left responding to his videos and period-quotes in order to help prevent establishing a strawman. He also explicitly chides when people conflate modern day rural Southerners with confederates. I find it hard to refute his points in his Checkmate videos. Cringe, maybe - but he does a good job dismantling a lot of postfacto Lost Cause talking-points, especially as the series went on and he found more of a voice. InRange’s Karl has collab’d ith him multiple times now so anything’s possible. He very clearly isn’t content with his channel living inside an echo chamber. I’m really curious to hear Chick’s thoughts on his Sherman video, which I think is his best.

[@dirlexx9771]

@@fuzzydunlop7928 Carl from Inrange is cringe also. So they're a good pair. Carl is always on about internet censorship but then works with Atun who has donated to SPLC

[@seanbeadles7421]

I mean Sean can be pretty dang cringe too with some of his opinions that seem like they exist just because they’re not mainstream Also I didn’t realize the SPLC controls what can be on the internet, when did that happen?

[@darrynmurphy2038]

George W Bush should have emulated Alexander's conquest of Afghanistan by dynastically wedding the daughters of prominent warlords and tribal chiefs. Had he copied Alexander and Roxanne, he might've become the American Alexander. Also, Alexander's defeat of Persia is roughly equivalent to how the Spanish conquistadors brought down the Inca empire, which had just undergone a major civil war and epidemic, yet was still a massive empire that like Persia could've lasted many more centuries without a wildcard foreign invasion

[@21nickik]

And the British general had sex with the Afghan warlords favourite slave/concubine and that started the attacks on their camp and lead to them all dying.

[@okenogamer]

Oh I'm sure Afghanistan existed as an individual state back in Alex's time. It was region encompassed by bactria. He didn't marry Roxana because he couldn't conquer bactria like he didn't marry Darius's daughter because he couldn't conquer western satrapies. Alexander defeated bessus, spitemenese's guriella tactic and captured the stronghold of Sogdian rock. Comparing Persia to Inca lol. Yeah sure Persia was still intact with rich provinces of Egypt and Babylon. Best fortified cities, three major battles with everything persia had to offer including eastern satrapies who had some of the best mountain fortresses and eastern cavalry including horse archers lol

[@dirlexx9771]

I think Richard the Lion Heart should possibly be on the list. People didn't have correct view of middle ages until more recently

[@chetanteja5795]

nah lmao

[@austinford1530]

Saladin is better than him honestly.

[@decimusausoniusmagnus5719]

This is very based. Thank you, Mr. Thersites.

[@Urlocallordandsavior]

Thanks to Empire Total War, I was introduced to 18th century warfare. I watch CSPAN by the way sometimes.

[@dalegamburg8995]

Bro! I love Dodge, best book on Alexander .No one tells it better. Especially when he got an arrow.

[@guidokreeuseler9566]

3:00:00 Charles of Lorraine was also the Empress' brother-in-law, so very well connected indeed!

[@craniusdominus8234]

Frederick was the only one in this list that actually seemed to learn from his own mistakes fairly consistently. The fact that he basically forced himself to become a great general *despite his inclination to the contrary* suggests to me that he possessed a stronger willpower than he's given credit for. An opinion which is further reinforced by the fact that he was confronted with suicidal thoughts fairly frequently throughout his life, but never actually acted on him. That's why I think any similarity to Tzar Alexander I is purely superficial. Alexander really was a malleable fellow who truly disliked confrontation, while Frederick doesn't strike me as the person who would hold back on his opinions (as his falling out with Voltaireseems to prove, for example). No, if Frederick was able to fit himself to the nature of the conversation he was having at any given moment, it was because he actually had made forced himself to be good in any situation. Also, Frederick was prejudiced as f*** against Polish people. I'm paraphrasing here, but basically he once said something to the effect that anyone whose family name ended in -ski was a primitive. Napoleon's judgement actually worsens as times goes by, and by 1812 was already making some seriously boneheaded decisions left and right. But in fairness to him, he made some truly bad calls all the way before 1804, even. It's just that in the early years, they were fewer and further between. And Napoleon had one massive mental blind spot. He was so unshakeably confident in his own genius that it simply didn't occur to him that other people couldn't always be as good at a job as he wanted them to be. This is especially true of his opinion of Joseph, who he somehow thought would make a fine King of Spain. As far as I'm concerned, Alexander didn't really make any mistakes. Alexander's disastruous march back from India through the desert is considered one of his rare blunders, but there is an alternative interpretation that it might have been carried out as a form of punishment against the troops who had forced him to turn back from his plans. Julius and Hannibal made very few mistakes, but a case can't conclusively be made if they learned anything from them or the circumstances to repeat them simply never arose. I'm really not as familiar with Carolus Rex to comment on what mistakes he might have made. As for Napoleon's visit to Frederick's grave, he didn't specifically mention Jena, if I recall. It was like "If Frederick was still alive, I wouldn't be here". Which I always found funny, considering *where* he was standing.

[@geordiejones5618]

Caesar absolutely learned from mistakes. He's probably the best general coming off a defeat in history. He was able to lead decisive victories against Vercingetorix, Pompey and Labienus after avoiding catastrophic defeat against all three.

[@ronaldmcdonald2817]

Charles XII big mistake was not following the Russian army after Narva. Mind you, at the time, it was reasonable as the Polish-Lithuania army was on the move against the Swedes but in hindsight, finishing off the Russians would have prevented his invasion of Russia 1709 and the downfall of the Swedish Empire at Poltava.

[@okenogamer]

Alexander made just few tactical errors like being caught in a narrow defile at Persian gate which he seemed to have learned from always using natives to learn about the topography before carrying lightning offensives and using natives to traverse the unknown landscapes. Sometimes splitting his forces into two and then sometimes five solid Corp to subdue region left ,right ,and center in different direction also gedrosia wasn't a military expedition and most of his army took inland route under craterus and only small contingent took the desert route which was suppose to be aided by nearchus's fleet but couldn't catch up to the army.

[@georgelindley6752]

Eugene had ships named after him by Italy, Austria and Germany. Not sure anyone else has more.

[@deeznoots6241]

The thing I always find fascinating about many of the great generals of history is how often they are completely inept at naval warfare, either not engaging in it at all or having disastrous defeats when they do. Alexander lucks out with the Rhodian fleets admiral dropping dead, Caesar is defeated at sea and encircled by Antony at Actium and only saved by Antony making a horrible blunder, Napoleon reformed large parts of the French state but the navy was left practically untouched and despite having a very powerful foundation for contesting with the British for control of the sea they completely flounder and get utterly humiliated. On that last point I think the French navy of the Napoleonic wars was one of the bigger flaws of the Napoleonic empire that would cause his eventual defeat, if their navy was at least competent they should have caused serious damage to British trade and cut off a lot of the money flowing to Austria, Russia, Prussia, etc

[@nickklavdianos5136]

Well, Alexander was indeed lucky, but the Macedonian navy was powerful enough and of course Alexander also had the Athenians as allies. Now, the Athenian navy might not have been what it was before and during the early years of the Peloponnesian War, but it was still a relatively formidable force. I believe the Caesar you mentioned is not Gaius Julius Caesar but Octavian Caesar, his adopted son. As for the French Navy, it faced two problems. First was that it had some pretty solid officers, that ended up imprisoned or dead during the French Revolution because of course they were aristocrats. The second problem has more to do with geography. The major continental powers of Europe were Russia, Prussia, Austria-Hungary and France. Out of these, France is the only one that possesses a colonial empire. England is of course an island and so the Brits don't really need as large a land army as the continental Empires and therefore can divert those resources to fund their navy, because that's what's actually protecting them and their colonial empire. The continental empires on the other hand, don't really need a navy because they don't need to rule the seas. So Prussia and Austria-Hungary don't really have a fleet during the Napoleonic wars, while the Russians do have a fleet, but one that at least during this time has no aspirations of fighting the Royal Navy for supremacy over the world's oceans. So, the French are in a very bad position. Because they have both to maintain a large land army to fight the other continental powers and to maintain a strong enough navy to challenge the British on the sea. So no wonder that the French failed at achieving naval supremacy, even though they had a very strong navy comprised of some really well made and engineered ships. Oh and of course, both the French army and the French navy did a hell of a better job at their respective fields than their Spanish counterparts managed.

[@okenogamer]

Memnon's death didn't mean anything since Alexander was taking out port cities and Antipater left in Macedon with string greek allies. That mf would have been caught in middle lol

[@tobias734]

Do non western great captains!

[@x.kasiouris5503]

The only one I can think of are Khalid Al Walid, Subatai and Timur, as for Suleiman and Saladin aren't quite there, oh and I think that the Seljuck Sultan that won Manzikert might be eligible as well and maybe even Ibrahim Pasha of Egypt though he did had his ass handed to him by the Maniots every time he came at them.

[@DirtyMardi]

@@x.kasiouris5503 Cyrus the Great, probably the first truly great emperor. Jebe, Kublai, Qin Shi Huang, Oda Nobunaga, Thutmose III, Vo Nguyen Giap, Ashoka the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent, Selim the Grim, Abbas the Great etc.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

@@DirtyMardi I thought of Cyrus but i am not sure since we don't know enoguh abotu him as far as i am aware, btw jebe is a son and kublai a grandson right? As for the reast from east asia i don't know any besides Oda Nobunaga which i excluded because they said that the great captains have to operate in more places than one country and sadly his succesor Hideyosi didn't go to fight in korea as far as i knowas for Suleiman i don't think he's quit ethere things such as Mohacs were impressive but he also too many defeats for my tatse and i don't see his situation as hard with the army he inherented and the resources as for his fathe ri am not sure i know abotu his cmapign against the mamluks and i excluded him cause i excluded his son

[@josecipriano3048]

@@x.kasiouris5503 the 7th century Caliphate had enough brilliant generals for a couple hours video. The same with steppe peoples.

[@seanbeadles7421]

Huayna Capac

[@Corvinuswargaming1444]

Historians have given the Dutch and Swedes an outsized role in military developments that the Habsburgs had already been doing

[@T.S.Birkby]

Out of the 6 Great Captains, which of their opposition was most formidable?

[@nestorvargas2399]

Probably Hannibal, he faced better Roman generals who avoided his armies and really destroyed it with logistics and guerilla warfare. He also later faced Scipio, arguably the best Roman general of all time. Even though Hannibal won great victories, they didn't matter much as his opponents were still powerful enough to win the war

[@Esper320]

Gustavus for sure, all of his opponents were arguably students of war and had great inspiration, logistical and war strategy and tactics to draw from. Caesar and Alexander are in a close tie for 2nd, while technological superiority and tactics (for the most part) favored both, they still faced logistical nightmares and huge numbers of enemies who stopped giving pitched battles after a while.

[@herbthompson8937]

Hannibal and Ceasar facing Roman legions

[@craniusdominus8234]

Frederick. He basically fought World War 0, almost alone in the European theater. He flat out shouldn't have been able to win, but he just didn't seem to get that memo. Yes, I'm aware that he overcommited. And that he basically lucked out, but to some degree, he made his own luck by being who he was. He couldn't honestly expect a Tzarina in her early 50s to just drop down and die, that much is true. But can anyone honestly imagine Tzar Peter III being a fan of Frederick William II, instead? Napoleon faced a similarly strong opposition, but at least he had France's resources at his disposal, not Prussia's. And, in the end, he squandered his chances.

[@darrynmurphy2038]

Hannibal. Against any other opponent he would have won after a similar defeat as Cannae.

[@21nickik]

I would argue the old roman system of the 3 lines is basically a version of reserve.

[@aslanlovett4059]

"Leave it to the Triarii "sounds like a reserve to me.

[@aimmenromane4791]

Han xin is a great one too

[@Account.for.Comment]

My favorite general. Never lost a battle.Taking mostly barely trained soldiers and defeating either veteran generals or overwhelming numbers with creative schemes and psychological warfare. Also knew how to cultivate good advisors, dared to ask a salary/promotion negotiation right when the organization almost fall apart, openly ignored a royal order so that the guy he disliked got boiled alive. All the while, being stupidly loyal to his boss and old friend and got a just reward in the end. The guy used to be a beggar, almost starved to death, humiliated for cowardice and ended up burned alive in a bell.

[@josecipriano3048]

I can see Hannibal destroying the Persian empire. I can't see Alexander leading a mostly mercenary army into the heartland of Rome and destroy it's largest armies for 15 years.

[@EliasKagan]

You’re right, Alexander would not let it go on for 15 years. After Cannae he would destroy the city of Rome one way or another.

[@niccolorichter1488]

​@@EliasKagan cannot see Alexander knowing what to do against Fabian strategy

[@okenogamer]

Let's see Hannibal maintain the supplies for 10 years while travelling all the way to India and not just marching ahead but virtually subduing each region left, right,and center. Let's see Hannibal undertaker 13 sieges against mountain fortresses and a literal island as successfully as Alexander . Alexander's main army except for the phalanx and companions were composed of allies and mercenaries. Peltast, Agrianians, Grecian allies, Thessalians, Thracians, missile troops. Let's see Hannibal fight in land of bactria while dealing with Sogdian revolt leading to now spending the time and effort in capturing all the towns fortification and dealing with spitemenese's guriella warfare and fighting a pitched battle against scythian horse archers at the same time. Sure Alexander might not be able to completely wipe out Roman army of that period but would defeat them soundly in every single battle. Alexander alone had 8 different cavalry units like the companions, Thessalians, Thracians, prodromoi, paeonians, greek allied cavalry, scythian horse archers, odrysians, Bactrian and finally Indian contingents. Light troops like hypaspits and Agrianians and peltast with all kind of missile troops like archers, slingers, javlinemen and artillery infact he was the first general in history to use siegecraft as field artillery something Romans would later copy

[@okenogamer]

​@@niccolorichter1488 would Fabian strategy work against an army deployed in corp system with superior mobility operating independently in the large field from one another and concentrating at once by catching up to larger enemy force? Now what if I tell you that Alexander deployed tactics almost similar to a corp system to counter spitemenese's guriella tactic by splitting his forces into 5 mini army with varieties of units under Alexander himself, haepastion, ptolemy, coenus,and some other guy whose name I forgot. It was possible due to their combined arms tactics since Alexander had about cavalry of 8 different units. Now imagine Ronan army trying to split their forces into a solid Corp system to make their Fabian strategy effective by increasing the mobility? They can't. Alexander would rip them apart piece by piece that's exactly what Napoleon did with his corp system but I should preface that Alexander's tactics of splitting forces isn't exactly similar to a corp system but does follow a similar order

[@maxwelihecker481]

Completely agree with your view on Wilson. Not near as bad as Buchanan and yet people on the left and right are pushing that rn

[@aslanlovett4059]

Wilson is the fount from which most of out modern Bureaucratic issue flow from. If you spend some time researching it becomes clear

[@bengerber735]

I don't know about Dodge's specifics but for Napoleon his "Great Captains" seem to have been people he personally looked up to and sought to emulate. He believed, from what I have read, not necessarily that they were the best but that they were the most instructive to him. Would he have ranked Jebe, Nader, or Montecuccoli below Turenne? Or was Turenne just the one he sought, as a commander of French soldiers, to emulate and whose campaigns served as outlines for what he wanted to accomplish?

[@austinford1530]

I think Turrene is legit top 20

[@armada854]

I appreciate Sean's integrity regarding the ubiquitous and oh-so-original trashing of the confederacy.

[@fuzzydunlop7928]

Can't beat the classics.

[@LANeverSleeps]

Honestly, trashing them is pretty important considering all the people that still wave the flag and fight the lost cause.

[@thoughtfulpug1333]

Frederick from what I've read seems to be the most depressive of the generals listed. At many points after major defeats like Kolin and Kunersdorf he considers ending his life, often needing to be talked down by his family (usually his sister whom he was closest with).

[@ronaldmcdonald2817]

Sad thing is he lost his older sister, Wilhelmie the same day he was defeated at Hochkirch.

[@danfromtheburgh]

Would have liked to give this a listen, but with this audio quality I'm not interested. A proper microphone should be top priority for you IMO.

[@Permabull_Moonman]

Thanks

[@kamartaylor7963]

I don’t understand.....why is Ghengis Khan never in these conversations? He’s like the Kobe Bryant of history.

[@carlosdelsol76]

killing a bunch of chinese is not an accomplishment, an european/persian counts like 20 chinese

[@someguy4405]

He was just such a asshole that we all pretend he's not on the list out of spite.

[@blaisedajpiji9526]

Great episode, just one thing missing: I really hoped you would talk about the personality of gustav adolphus, as it was said I doomed his campiagn in Germany by having poor relationship with german princes, especially with the Saxon elector. And also, because he died famously by the sword of rhe croatian cavalryman :).

[@alanpennie8013]

How could he possibly have developed satisfactory relations with German princes? He was a foreign invader and his army devastated the provinces it occupied.

[@Account.for.Comment]

Timestamp? Anyway, I often wonder why some people considered Julius Ceasar as one of, if not, the greatest general of all time when his skills are comparable to other Roman generals like as said, Pompei almost defeated him. Thanks for giving a fair assessment of his generalship, I understood a lot better now. Is Charlemagne, Genghis Khan and Xiongnu Modu came up in the discussion at all? I have not watch the 4hr+. Maybe you can do discuss greatest leaders with abysmal miltary records next. The only one in my mind is Liu Bang who took 580,000 soldiers and lost aginst 30,000. Granted, the records are exagerrated but he did lost in every major battles where he is the leader, and still become the emperor while being illiterate. Historical leaders boasting of great military records are plenty, there is not many, who can boasted they can rule well despite being in shit in fighting.

[@craniusdominus8234]

I know this doesn't sound particularly inspiring, but Julius Caesar is considered a great general mostly because of two factors 1) he outlived most of the generals who defeated him and 2) he had PR. Now, that sounds like I'm selling him short, and that's because I AM. He really was an A tier general, there's no denying that. BUT he mainly found himself matched up against A or B tier generals. And he came out all right from those fights. Even Pompei only managed to *almost* defeat him. Also, if we're discussing the "greatest" leaders with abysmal military records, then our boy Doug MacArthur might be of interest to you.

[@Account.for.Comment]

@@craniusdominus8234 Yeah, it seems that had Octavius not emerging winner, Caesar would not be so greatly regarded in military skills. Since he is a master of spinning narratives when alive, and the Roman historians added extra flavors because his name became synonymous with power. When looking at the events, I found that Pompei and Marius had a higher claims to better military fame than Caesar but none had Augustus spin machine or Shakespeare plays. An old documentary of Hannibal I watched, had some historians, said in a point at the end that while impressive, remember that some of the exploits of Hannibal might be made up or exaggerated by the historian hired by the Scorpio family to increase prestige. Since then, I'm skeptical about war narratives. That is not to say that Hannibal and Caesar are not great captains, but "all warfare are based on deception" and "war is a continuation of policy by any other means". So I treat it like a campaign slogan or a politican speeches. Edit: A comment here talked of the events in Alexander in India in much difference from what we often heard. Instead of being a great general who led his native army to the end of the world, he is a charismatic king who commanded multi-ethnic army from people he conquered. His generals would prefer the first version and "to the strongest" is just too advantageous. What about Doug McArthur? I tend to a avoid WW2 histories because there are so many books I do not know where to choose. More interested in kings and rulers though. They are expected to be good at war (or at least good at spinning it) so it would be strange to see them not lost their crown if they are sht.

[@Cyberpunker1088]

@@Account.for.Comment How was Pompei greater than Caeser? Just look at their Pontic wars and the fact that Caesar won against Pompei while being outnumbered and not having a navy.

[@Account.for.Comment]

@@Cyberpunker1088 By retreating from Rome, with mastery of manuevers logistic and politics that allowed him to avoid being defeated until assembled a army that can outnumber his enemy. Had he not fight that battle and simply wait out the war, Ceasar is finished.

[@Cyberpunker1088]

@@Account.for.Comment I think Caesar deserves credit for actually getting Pompei to fight the battle then?

[@markbarton1224]

Shouldn't the great elector rate some mention in discussing the 30yrs. war. He did kick the Sweeds out of Germany.

[@joshw.c.3862]

I love the fact Sean realizes America is collapsing culturally and acknowledges it nonchalantly on the shows lol. He’s right though. If we are lucky we will avoid a civil war and perhaps Balkanize. I don’t see how it can go on even another 10 years at the current rate

[@craniusdominus8234]

I'll give it half a century, at least, even without serious political reform. Even Rome didn't collapse immediately in 476. Empires don't just collapse like buildings. They wither and die like people. I'm becoming increasingly more convinced that the only way to get a meaningful political reform done in the US would be through military occupation by an outside power, the way it was done in Japan and Germany at the end of WW2. The problem with that reasoning is that I really wouldn't like what kind of reforms the outside powers with an even remote chance of pulling this off would implement. Granted, I'm speaking as an EU citizen, not a US citizen, but I don't think you'd like it either.

[@theserenedogeofvenice3895]

@@craniusdominus8234 Valid, but how would this ever be implemented? Just occupying major cities? What army would occupy the entirety of the US, or even just its major states? How much of a force would be needed to fend off the very obvious counter offensive by those in the interior? While Japan occupied China during WW2, I'm convinced that the 2A is the single factor that will prevent it from going a similar route in America.

[@johnmurdoch3083]

It will collapse but in such a way that no one will notice. By the time the last western emperor was deposed most people just shrugged their shoulders and carried on. Not much changed except the tax collectors were less precise

[@craniusdominus8234]

@@theserenedogeofvenice3895 Let's face it, military occupation of the US isn't likely to happen any time soon, and I didn't mean to sound like it would be an option. I was just saying that the current political system in the United States looks like it needs to undergo a significant change, while still being remarkably resistant to even the most minor changes. There's just too much inertia and too much entrenchment for any radical changes to happen. Abstractly speaking, since it doesn't look like the current system will be able to reform itself from within, then it can only have reform imposed upon it from outside. Realistically speaking, it probably won't happen.

[@Theodosius_fan]

Caesar is also an icredibly fast marcher

[@olefredrikskjegstad5972]

The only "ruler-general" I even know about Post-Napoleon is King Albert of Belgium. During WW1 he commanded what was left of the Belgian army on the Western Front in person. Obviously didn't win much because he's fighting in WW1.

[@7adiyo]

Persia at the time of Alexander was in a very similar position to the byzantine empire after Basil II

[@aslanlovett4059]

There was no Byzatine empire.

[@7adiyo]

@@aslanlovett4059 :D. I should clarify to say the Eastern Roman empire under Basil II although you did get my point. :)

[@x.kasiouris5503]

Not at all dude

[@austinford1530]

ehh, they weren't at that point yet

[@genericyoutubeaccount579]

Skanderbeg is easily in the top 5.

[@babitayadav4806]

Based

[@wookieboss2643]

If you know how or why, can you do a podcast on the Brettons and how they managed to never be concoured by Rome, even though the rest of France was! There must of been a great leader, either feared by Rome or a great negotiator. Its something to do with there excellent naval capabilities I think, but have never herd anything about them and how they stayed unconquerable!

[@austinford1530]

It's simply because the terrain was too shitty and that there wasn't enough effort to conquer it. And even then Agricola almost conquered it but Domitian recalled him. Britons also had no navy to speak of iirc.

[@herbthompson8937]

How do you think Alexander would have fared against Carthage?????? I think it would have been tough with the manpower

[@craniusdominus8234]

Well, that depends on when he would have faced off against Carthage. If he went against Carthage *instead* of going for Persia? Probably would have been a nightmare getting any meaningful supplies or manpower across the Mediterranean. If he went to Carthage *after* he became King of Persia, then the disparity in resources would have been so insane, that I find it hard to believe Carthage would have stood a change.

[@atticus6572]

Logistics would be the singular barrier. Militarily, it would handily be in the favour of the Macedonians. Carthage wasn't known for their martial prowess unless Hannibal was concerned.

[@atticus6572]

The imperial Macedonian army, in the final years of Alexander, would've performed well. There were the veteran phalangites paired with the swell of eastern recruits; many of them as light, flexible infantry.

[@craniusdominus8234]

@@atticus6572 Yeah, Carthage could put up a hellish blockade, and I don't think Athens and the other Greek states would fall overthemselves to help Alexander with that. But Carthage's military is not only smaller and less capable, but it would also be responsible for multiple commitments across the Mediterranean. If Alexander could put sandals on the ground in Africa, Carthage would be screwed, though.

[@atticus6572]

@@craniusdominus8234 Agreed, and I have zero doubt Alexander could touch down in Africa by following the North African coast. The blockade could only so so much as Alexander has plenty of sources of income as King of Asia. Honestly, it's a no-brainer win for Macedon in my books.

[@James_taylor810]

I’m doing my masters degree in Hellenistic history at the moment.

[@211212112]

Alexander didn't live long enough for us to figure out if he was as great as he appeared to be. The big question is what about Alex in his thirties, forties, sixties? If Napoleon died at Alexander's age... Look at Nappy's battle record at the age Alex died. That is GD impressive. Pyrrhus is great according to the great commanders in history and more than one of the greatest P was in the top two or three. I bring up P not as much cause of his record but the quality of the commanders who say P is one or two. Hannibal, I think, would have more to relay on when he ranks P first or second but more second to Alex's first. Caesar had a great record, he was way past his prime goes as far as how well his mind works, body works, other learn your tricks, and other things that make it hard for a man to be as sharp, quick, inventive, etc in his sixties as he was in his twenties. I can't recall any profession where men get better at it the older we get. Bellasaur (lol) accomplished so much to rarely be mentioned among the greatest. He did have a couple bricks that were total cock ups compared to whatt his average performance was.

[@sullafelix649]

Thersites what are your politics?

[@sethbecker7162]

This is an alt-right channel.

[@larryhall2873]

@@sethbecker7162 😂😂

[@RodolfoGaming]

Need to rank Admiral Yi, Khalid Ibn Al-Whalid, Cao Cao and Temujin(Genghis Khan)/Subutai in here ngl?

[@ThersitestheHistorian]

We do plan to do a more inclusive world history version of this. For this video, we were looking at the "traditional" (i.e. all Western) version of the Great Captains list

[@RodolfoGaming]

@@ThersitestheHistorian nice one can't wait and thanks for the very quick reply 👍. Keep up the great content 👌👌

[@alanpennie8013]

In that Budweiser ad Hannibal looks like he's cutting his left hand with that sword. Not very smart.

[@geordiejones5618]

Hannibal could have forced favorable terms on Rome by simply being more patient. If he stays in Spain and crushes a few Roman armies there he could have consolidated Barcid control over Spain. He walked away from a unfinished job much like Napoleon did and he never came back and it cost both of them. I think Hannibal's best chance was to march on Carthage itself after wrecking Rome in Spain for a couple years. His family had the support and clout that he could have at the very least forced the elite to name him supreme commander of the war without expiration. From there send his brothers to Spain while he takes Sicily with Syracuse. After that you can hop to Sardinia and then attack Italy from both the north and the south. You can't beat them on Italy imo but you can force a stalemate and terms that allows you to rebuild the navy.

[@doritofeesh]

No, I would say that invading Italy was the best plan. Firstly, we have to take into the reasons behind the war, which was the Siege of Saguntum. According to the Ebro Treaty, the Carthaginians were to keep to the southern side of the Ebro River, while the Romans kept to the northern side. Yet, Saguntum, a Roman ally, was clearly on the Carthaginian side of the Ebro. Not only that, but the people of Saguntum were making war upon the Iberian tribes allied to Carthage within the general area. Carthage, as friend and protector, was obligated to defend their allies, while the Romans had legitimacy in pressing their influence where Saguntum was concerned, because it broke the terms of the Ebro Treaty. In short, Rome was spoiling for war and used a bunk excuse to start it. One would think that, during the course of the whole Siege of Saguntum, if they were so worried about their ally, they would have dispatched a senator to convene with the Carthaginians to get them to lift the siege and come to a mutual understanding or rework the treaty. Instead, they just sat back and did nothing as Saguntum fell. Only after did they use the act as a pretense for a casus belli which, by the way, had no real legitimacy. Furthermore, your idea assumes that the Romans invade Iberia and don't just sail straight to Carthage, beat the armies there, and besiege Carthage itself. In all honesty, they had the naval superiority, manpower, and commanders capable of such a thing. As gifted as the heavens made Hannibal, the Carthaginian commanders were typically very lackluster (and this goes into my critique of people who seem to think that Scipio was the better general). By bringing the war to Italy and drawing Roman attention to their heartland, who spared Iberia for years before Scipio finally rose to replace his predecessors in that theater, while Africa was spared for a decade and a half. At the same time, Hannibal gradually pried apart the structure of alliances within the Roman Republic, laid waste to their lands, infrastructure, and economy, and destroyed such a vast percentage of their manpower that any other people would have surrendered long before then. By all means, his strategy of divide and conquer would have worked against a less resilient state; it would have worked against the Achaemenid Empire which Alexandros conquered and the more decentralized satrapies. The problem was that he faced a far greater challenge than any commander in history. Putting aside the difficulties I spoke up above, the commanders he faced after his greatest triumphs were all very good. Fabius doesn't get enough credit, but he is more than just someone who avoids battle and burns crops. One has to speak on how bold one must be to manoeuvre alongside an enemy who was clearly the superior tactician, all while using primarily raw recruits to Hannibal's battle-hardened veterans. Yet, this brave old man was able to harass Hannibal at every turn, cut his communications with his allies through skillful positioning, and scorched the path the Carthaginian army was bound to march through. At the Ager Falernus, he set about experimenting in a most novel fashion, posting his forces in such a manner where they encircled Hannibal and would have broken him by privation if not for his own wit and brilliance in extricating himself from the trap. It was this same Fabius who went on to direct the overall operations of the army group involving Gracchus, Marcellus, and himself, enacting the same plan as the Ager Falernus on an even greater scale and manoeuvring accordingly to follow Hannibal wherever he went. At all times, the Carthaginian commander found himself boxed in, his communications from his allies severed and with him unable to match the numerically superior Romans in foraging. Nor could he assail them, with their large armies strongly positioned in fortified settlements, or starve them out due to their vice-grip on his communications and control of foraging areas. Such was the noose devised by Fabius, that wherever Hannibal was, he would be met with such difficulties; wherever he was not, his allies would be picked apart in detail, depriving him of local bases.

[@geordiejones5618]

​@@doritofeeshYou completely ignored why Rome never pulled it's troops from Spain or Sicily: it absolutely couldn't afford to. Both Carthage and Rome needed Spanish silver, but Rome arguably needed it more, dealing with heavy inflation during the war, and becoming immediately reliant on Sicilian agriculture. Cutting one or both of those forces Rome to commit a much larger force to those regions, which then gives Hannibal the real opportunity to drive on Rome itself while it's most vulnerable. Anything less than a major pillage across Italy and a lengthy siege against Rome itself was hopelessly naive. He banked on the Italians and most of them just saw him as a foreign invader. His base of support is Southern Italy just couldn't bring the numbers to bear because Rome had fucked them already for a few decades. His only chance of amassing a major revolt of Roman subjects was to push them to the brink and he really never got close by jumping the gun. Hasdrubal would have been a better strategic leader of the war, using Hannibal as a loose dog that only he can leash.

[@doritofeesh]

@@geordiejones5618 Except Rome didn't really have a major foothold on Spain at the start, so I don't know what you're talking about. The strategic importance of Iberian gold and silver was certainly known, but they did not really benefit so massively from it until post-conquest. On the other hand, while you may have a point about the importance of Sicily and its agricultural value, you're once again conflating its importance BEFORE Hannibal invaded Italy. Longus had an army and navy amassing in Sicily preparing to invade Africa itself after war had been declared and the sources outright tell us this. At this point, the war had just begun and the Romans hadn't suffered nearly so bad that their economy was in the dark that holding Sicily would have tied Longus down to the island. What prevented him from invading Africa, as the sources tell us, was when Hannibal debouched through the Alps, defeated his co-consul, the elder Scipio, in battle at the Ticino River, then outmanoeuvred him in Northern Italy around Placentia. Longus had to race back, transporting his army by ships, then marching the rest of the way to join forces with Scipio, and after some preliminary manouevres and actions, they fought the Battle of the Trebia. Also, you do rightly point out that the Romans suffered from heavy inflation and economic damage DURING the war, but then go on to say that Hannibal "really never got close by jumping the gun." In actuality, he had gotten VERY close to defeating the Romans, because all of the foraging and scorched earth done on their rich and fertile farmlands, as well as the defections in Southern Italy depriving them of a significant chunk of their manpower and economic base had pretty much ruined their economy. That, and the losses of armies, which was so massive they had to rely on conscripting youths, slaves, and beggars to fill the ranks. They had to scrounge up generous donations from the nobility, particularly the noble women of Rome in order to continue the war effort. Even then, they bankrupted themselves TWICE! I've spoken with a historian on the matter and he said that the Roman coffers were pretty much dried up, which is why they had to turn to other ventures to pay for their mass deficit. Yet, it wasn't guaranteed that they would be able to make enough money to keep the war going. The Scipio brothers had just been destroyed in Spain and Nero was not able to accomplish much there before he was recalled and the younger Scipio (the famous Africanus) was to take his place. Yet, before then, it was the work of Fabius Verrucosus and Marcellus which really saved the Roman war effort. While Marcellus shadowed Hannibal and kept him in check, Verrucosus went about besieging the Italian city-states in detail and looting their treasuries for funds to pay for the war. However, their big break came when Marcellus, later operating in Sicily, was able to capture the city of Syracuse in 212 BCE, allowing copious amounts of funds to flow into the Roman war machine to keep it afloat. Yet, that still wasn't enough and other successes like the Siege of Capua in 211 BCE, along with Verrucosus' success in capturing Tarentum and Africanus' success in capturing Carthago Nova, both of which was achieved in 209 BCE, that additional funds which finally turned the tide in favour of the Romans. There were also other victories won around Illyria and Epeiros under Laevinus that helped to bolster the Republic. Victory for Rome was never guaranteed, but it was very good for her that she possessed a plethora of extremely competent generals in the form of all the aforementioned individuals, whereas Carthage really only had Hannibal. However, if Marcellus had been destroyed in Sicily or Africanus had ended up like his father and uncle, or even if the Roman commanders besieging Capua fell for the threat to their communications by Hannibal's march on Rome and lifted the siege... Rome might not have actually made it and could have still lost. You say that Hasdrubal would have been a better strategic leader, but we saw what happened when he only operated defensively around Sicily. The Romans could keep throwing more manpower at him and cut him off by sea. He was bottled and was never truly able to threaten their seat of power. Hannibal took the offensive and really, truly damaged the Roman Republic to such an extent that, again, 99% of countries in history probably would have thrown in the towel. Honestly, had the generation of Roman commanders during the 2nd Punic War not been as capable and Hannibal had to contend with those who fought and led during the 1st Punic War instead, there is a high chance that he wins the war. Carthage at her height, back when she still possessed naval supremacy, and when Hasdrubal was still leading her when she controlled vast swathes of Sicily, Corsica, and Sardinia... that Carthage did not make nearly the dent which Hannibal alone had done to the Romans in the second conflict. Also, those who consider Hannibal a bad strategist never stop to look at Africanus and what strategy he employed... Africanus didn't just learn from Hannibal's tactics, but he also learned from Hannibal as a strategist. Coincidence or not, the strategy he employed was the EXACT SAME which Hannibal had used against the Roman Republic. What a surprise how well it worked against Carthage.

[@Theodosius_fan]

I would say caesar was good at strategy so would Dodge

[@austinford1530]

Illerda is proof he can pull off great strategic wins

[@kamartaylor7963]

O sorry you mentioned khan... my bad

[@Account.for.Comment]

Just three things: The corps system and the tactics in Napoleon' s army is developed before him. The French created mass conscription, and had to develop ways to make that massive army workable. Minister Carnot is the one who suggested the conscription and spread out the all the best solutions the army discovered. Most of the wars, France fought as a nation, while others fought for monarch. Napoleon walked into their success and raised it ways higher than what anyone thought possible. On Napoleon being a dictator or not, and the reason Fouche is spared, I think you both had wrong ideas about dictators in general. Power is not absolute, and plenty of dictators closely worked with people whom they despised but do not killed. It can be a big risk taking such people out and dictators are aware that they cannot always took risk. Stalin kept Beria and Zhukov alive. Ceasar kept the people, who later killed him, alive. The ides of March happened because he plans to take their lands iirc. Often, political survival depends on acts of clemency, rewards for submissions and punishments only when permissible. Talleyrand and Fouche walking like a dating couple in Paris, is to show that Talleyrand is under Fouche protection (even if they hated each other) and thus untouchable. According to Wildberg' s biography of Bernadotte, the emperor never really had as much control in Paris as in the battlefield. Fouche is instrumental in giving and keeping Napoleon in power, taking him on is probably too much of a risk. During Brumaire' s coup, Napoleon went to Bernadotte' s house to ask him to join the coup. Bernadotte said no, and went straight to Barras, who is Napoleon ally to the coup, to complain. Similar situations could have happen. There are so many agents, double and triple, I think Napoleon would prefer to focus on more urgent matters like enemies invading than taking the guy who took down Robespiere. While wars are often declared on him, Napoleon also often displayed gestures goading them for a war declaration. He always prepared for them, and often took the initiative right after it was declared against him. It led him to surprise and defeat his enemies much quicker than they thought. The problem is that every time there is a war, the populace suffered greatly, and hatred against the French grew. It does not matter much to the people, who declared the wars, the famine, rap i ngs and looting are done by French soldiers. In 1805, only the Austrian government wanted war, in 1809 the Austrian nation want war. By 1813-15, European armies do not fight wars for their monarch, they fought for their nation states. I think his biggest flaw is that his diplomatic skills rest on defeating the enemies armies on a grand battle and dictate the peace terms. Sir Laurence Freeman the historian who wrote "On Strategy" said that he see Napoleon as a poor strategist in that he can only used brute force, but do not know how to build an international coalition. Anyway. Great Four Hours. I really enjoyed the histories where commentators do not gushed all over how awesome a historical personage is but tried to balance it out.

[@x.kasiouris5503]

I dunno man when it come to the dictator thing I would just call it a term with a negative contagion about guys who used force of arms to get in power and all there is to it is that it's just the taste of the age (last 100 years or so)

[@Account.for.Comment]

@@x.kasiouris5503 The word dictator conjured up negativity because we are aware of democratic importance. A more accurate debate is probably is he a tyrant or not, and I stayed away from that debate. Too many books are written by his fanboys or haters to make a comparisons of how others act. I' m only saying dictators, in general, are not cold-blooded, mass murder gangster-tyrant, they like to project their image. They are often very smart, calculating political geniuses who managed to climb and stayed on top of power while running their countries to the ground, because they knew who they can bullied or eliminate, and who they can' t. Napoleon did not take out Fouche and Talleyrand because he can' t not because of any mercy. I really want to read a book of Fouche, but I havent got a chance to yet.

[@okenogamer]

Alexander basically split his forces into 5 divisions with mixed units operating independently of one another and then concentrating at once to counter spitemenese's guriella warfare. This is literally one of the earliest versions of the corp system

[@Account.for.Comment]

@@okenogamer yeah, not much of it is new. Napoleon and the French republic simply command his army when it is easier to implement consistently.

[@okenogamer]

@@Account.for.Comment still Alexander did it first

[@7adiyo]

Like the Turks rolled over present day Turkey and basically destroyed the the Byzantine army after Manzikert. The Byzantines at the time were an internally feuding bunch with weaker leaders with their legitimacy always questioned. Also Indian elephants are smaller than African elephants in general except the ones that were used in Northern Africa during Alexander's time. They are also more easily domesticated.

[@Yrkr785]

Not quite most of the Turkish gains get reversed by Alexios during the crusades. It’s the fourth 4th crusade that allowed for the Turks to gain group otherwise if it was just the Turks and Byzantines the Turks couldn’t fight a Byzantine ground force without an ambush they had weaker soldiers and not the heavy Armor the Romans had.

[@davidgraczyk775]

Thersites you were correct. The African savannah elephant was too big to tame so they tamed the now extinct African forest elephant which is smaller than the Indian elephant. Indian elephants were the largest people could use for warfare at the time

[@Glassandcandy]

Good vid but you’re wrong on the elephants. African savannah elephants get up to 9 tons and 13 ft and Indian elephants only to 6 tons and 11 feet at max. African elephants are also more aggressive and temperamental however, Indian elephants can maneuver more quickly and agile than their African counterparts, which could theoretically make them a more intimidating opponent in some ways.

[@davidgraczyk775]

Yes but the thing is, is that the extinct African forest elephant which is smaller is the one they used in warfare. The savannah elephant was too big to tame

[@roystonsbailey]

Sean 'If you will' Chick and Ther 'to be fair' sites

[@TrajGreekFire]

Well the war of polish succession is known in Poland

[@coryfritz9198]

Sean your trying to be sneaky but I heard it lol

[@johnzebedee8963]

Oliver Cromwell

[@bathhatingcat8626]

Why isn’t Hitler on here? Not that I like the guy, but in his time, especially before Stalingrad, he was though of quite highly- even more so before Poland. Conquering most of Europe essentially after 1815 has to be one of the more difficult feats in history even if the territory wasn’t held.

[@austinford1530]

Hitler wasn't a general at all lol. His actual generals were doing the work for him

[@Evocletian]

terrible audio

[@ILLBLEED5]

I tried to listen to this but the audio is shit

[@Cyberpunker1088]

Albrecht von Wallenstein was a better commander than Gustavus Adolphus and should take the Swedish king's place on this list.

[@justicar5]

1776 Project came out before the 1619 Project

[@211212112]

One could say keeping a ten year old boy around to sodimize being bad is a modern construct like "gay" is. While i understand the idea and agree it is true in some ways I think is is almost always better not to muddy up the water bringing in a fator that complicates drawing firm conclusion😮s. The boy sex is has always been wrong, and never will be anything but wrong despite society thinking it was cool in the past and it seems like they want to make it ok in the future.

[@billykotsos4642]

47:50 LMFAO

[@Ikokaoniko]

Indian elephants are bigger(twice probably) than African elephants?! 😂

[@joepetto9488]

Lee belongs on the list for his age alone, everyone else mentioned was in their prime during their greatest victories, all of them 20-40, Lee was in his 50s when he began dancing on the Union in victories as daring and audacious echoing those of Napoleon and Alexander. The Army of Gustavus Adolphus was not totally Swedish, 1/3 of their infantry were ethnic Gaels, 1/10th were German Saxons, 2/3 of their cavalry were Finns. Alexander Leslie was a Scot who was notorious for serving with Sweden he and his veterans were able to operate a canon which lead to the first Scottish victory on English soil in nearly 300 years at the battle of Newburn. The Dutch developed the longer lines, the Swedes developed barraging fire, cycling their musketeers, the Roman tie in is the Romans cycled their infantry, likewise the Swedes cycled their musketeers to present a constant barrage upon the Spanish formations.

[@stuka80]

Gonna have to peg Alexander a notch down. While a military genius, he came up against weak leadership and weak asiatic armies who as Napoleon put it "whos defects increased with their numbers". While the only commander who stands out on the Persian side, a Greek ( cant remember the name atm) died before he could implement a scorched earth, Fabian strategy that worked so well against Hannibal. Xenophon's Anabasis demonstrated that even a small Greek force could roam around the heartland of the Persian empire at will. The best commander among the 3 ancients i would have to give to Hannibal. He fought a superior military establishment with competent generals under a strong and vigorous state and kept mercenaries together for 16 years and never had 1 mutiny in his heterogenous army in all that time. He also displayed a more varied skill in tactics and was willing to use ruses and guile to defeat his opponents, something Alexander consciously rejected. Caesar is definitely 3rd and by far has the weakest claim of the 3. Alexander and Hannibal are far above him.

[@okenogamer]

Weak Asiatic levies? Read any scholarly article on the infantry of Persian army or just see the reconstruction of the immortals. Do you have any idea about the Persian cavalry? Skirmishers, missile troops? d Xenophon's army Only romed around the small part of empire Alexander covered from modern day Baghdad and never defeat Persians in any pitched battles? Lol have you read the anabasis? They were tricked into chasing the Persian cavalry so easily and routed lmao they only managed to make it out of Persian fighting local tribesmen. I would also like to see Memnon of Rhodes trying to deploy Fabian strategy on Alexander who was already picking apart the port cities of Persian empire while greek allied ships from Macedonia under Antipater wouldve easily halted Memnon's blockade to take on Memnon's blocked trapping him at sea. Alexander's strategy basically let him control from Asia minor to Egypt before moving for Syria which means memnon would be trapped in the sea. Alexander operated with dividing troops into five individual commander due to its flexibility which means he would rip apart any army trying to halt his progress using Fabian strategy using his mobility and corp system tactic

[@okenogamer]

Purely based on tactics name me one tactic in which Hannibal displayed varied skills in tactics which Alexander didn't. I'll give it to Hannibal that his tactics were more effective in wiping out large army but interms of tactics Alexander was more flexible. Oblique order, false gap, first general in history to use siege machinery as regular field artillery on pitched battles, concentration of forces, Caesar mixing cavalry with one line of infantry is something Alexander did at gaugemala, used earliest version of corp system and combined armed tactics. Scipio is criticised for using Hannibals tactics at baecula with dividing his army into three parts,weak center and strong flanks to draw the enemy to weak center and attacking with flank. Now look at siege of arigaeum in which Alexander deployed page to page similar tactic in enveloping his enemy. Same at Persian gate by deploying giant pincer. Taking about feints and ruse hydadpes is a masterclass in using feints and diversionary attack and Jaxartes is a classic eg of feint attack to draw the horse archers and different units attacking from different axis and concentrating into one.

[@7adiyo]

There is another lesser known version of the war with Porus, an Indian version of events which show that the battle was if not a stalemate, more of a very bad pyrrhic victory for Alexander which made further incursions untenable. Alexander and his well known propaganda spun this into the story of how he was forced to turn around by his homesick soldiers. You have to remember, although his army core was still Macedonian, majority of his army was filled with Persians, Bactrians and other defeated peoples who weren't too far from home. Also he had to return through the Gedrosian desert not just to save time but because, the defeated people their way back i.e. people on the Indus etc. were too hostile for a successful problem free walk back to Babylon.

[@Sikandros]

ive always heard indians claiming a different story of the battle with Porus. yet there is apparently no evidence from india, no references, inscriptions, etc. so how do you know this?

[@7adiyo]

@@Sikandros @Huishoiang i Unfortunately it is true that there are no Indian sources writing about this acclaimed supposedly large and hardest fought battle for the Greeks, not even in Chanakya's contemporary works! which shows the peripheral and local nature of Porus' cheifdom. But it is widely known and accepted even by the ancient historians including Arrian that Alexander and the Satraps who followed him had issued complex propaganda which has been picked up and churned since then and history itself in the Western perspective is based on Greek. So any other stories are discarded as local legend. But anyway I have mentioned more of a pyrrhic victory by Alexander which itself is from the Greek history. Him retaining Porus' position and even increasing it with Ambhis' neighboring chiefdom might just be a continuation of the Persian policy in the region regardless of victory or defeat.

[@okenogamer]

Basically anything you don't agree with just turn blind eye to literary sources and spout out utter nonsense by calling it a propaganda because you can't contend with a fact. If you are talking about contemporary Indian sources much of the written text pre Mauryan period is sparse and even much of the info about Chandragupta was written centuries prior. There is no war between Chandragupta and selucus from Indian sources.It wasn't a phyrric victory for Alexander but was one sided and every single of the main sources agree. It would be neigh impossible to defeat Alexander's combined armed forces which included horse archers and 7 other cavalry units like companions, Thessalians, Thracians, prodromoi, paeonians,greek allied cavalry, scythian horse archers, odrysians, etc. Alexander first campaigned in indus for a year before marching through desert with small contingent of his army while most took inland route under the command of craterus. There is even a coin minted from the time of Alexander showing Alexander on horse back fighting a man in elephant a victory coin dated to 323 bce. But god forbid you'll call that a propaganda as well .Lol go ahead throw your arguments at me I'll counter them all

[@okenogamer]

​​@@7adiyo r/bad history buddy doesn't know shit. His core of his army besides Macedonians were made up of greek allies, Agrianians and peltast, cretan archers, rhodian slingers javlinemen havlin. With scythian horse archers bring only cavalry operating from Persia most of his army at hydadpes were Greeks. You mentioned chanakhya's contemporary work which is a treaty on ruling effectively not a historical writing. How do you know the battle is a propaganda what is your argument? Because it was a hardest fought battle? Yeah sure since Alexander's army was divided into two one under Alexander and other under craterus across the river and Alexander was basically fighting whole troop of porus with half of his army until craterus crossed the river which is why he lost so many men compared to his other battles. Cope

[@7adiyo]

I guess you just want to goad me into a stupid war of words as your aggressive tone indicates! But this will be my last post to you, I did not write that I disagree, I am just saying that the sources mentioned are propaganda (if you think these things were mentioned to record "history" then that is a naive assumption. Now propaganda will definitely have some truth but is always aggrandized in victory and swatted to the side or hidden in defeat.

[@contasemperfil]

👍

[@tonydevos]

So when sean chick says that desegregation cause a decline in blacks economic position, that means we should have stayed segregated? Nice!

[@josephstammer8682]

Why is Sean such a ccp homer

[@historyUnlimitedX]

Trump as a bad president but not Biden?? Are you F kidding? 😂

[@digenes4146]

Terrible, no based Timur the lame

[@aslanlovett4059]

Trump is Aurelian. Biden is Quintillius

[@craniusdominus8234]

@Valer I think it would be counterproductive to compare *any* contemporary political systems too closely with the Roman Empire. In broad strokes, the collapse of the USSR is comparable to the fall of the Roman Empire, or to the fall of Constantinople, or of the HRE. But that doesn't mean that the individual leaders are comparable between political entities separated by time and space. BUT, that's because empires thrive or fall NOT because of any given leader's skills or shortcomings, but because of the cohesion or disunity of their general population. Any empire large enough will inevitably tend towards collapse. A capable leader might slow that tendecy, or may even reverse it temporarily, while an inept one will hasten it. However, the point is that every single leader in history will be shaped by the politicial system in which he was brought up, and by his personal experiences within that particular system. I think that comparing Lenin to Augustus or Trump to Aurelian, or Putin to whover, or Caesar to whoever else you might think of is just pure mental laziness, and that it is generally unhealthy to judge an individual by comparing him to a historical figure, instead of assesing him by his own merits.

[@richardleston5237]

@@ii121 trump is like Julius Caesar