>>201483770
why are you a faggot

>>201483786
good morning sir

>>201483770
Napoleon > Julius Caesar > Alexander > Adolf Hitler > dunno who that chinese guy is

Gengis
Napoopan
Alexander
Caesar
Hitler

File: 1353989_Wallpaper2.jpg (59 KB, 640x480)

59 KB JPG

>>201483809
no

>>201483770
Napoleon (pbuh)
Genghis
Caesar
Alexander
Hitler

>>201483821
it's genghis khan, who by kills should be at the top of that list followed by alexander then kaiser

i'm literally napoleon

>>201483866
Oh. But we're not really ranking them by kills. That's pointless. Anyway, he'd still be at the bottom because all that he conquered was a bunch of wasteland. Didn't actually rule it in any meaningful way either. Most overrated cunt in history.

Genghis = Alexander > Cesar > Napoleon & Hitler

File: 1543257578014.gif (2.97 MB, 232x218)

2.97 MB GIF

>>201483821
>dunno who that chinese guy is

>>201483832
this i think

>>201483770
Ranking on what? Tactics conquests charisma?

>>201483866
How did Alexander's wars ever kill more people than Hitler's or even Napoleon's

>>201484117
i did not have hitler in my list

>>201484150
Germans are pathetic.

>>201484150
Your post listed Gengis then Alexander then Caesar which implies Napoleon and Hitler (or vice versa) are next since they are the 5 being discussed itt

>>201483770
Based
Based
Based
Based
Based

>>201483890
This.
Faggot historylets just went crazy over "OH MY SCIENCE IS THAT STEPPENIGGER HORSE ARCHERS WOWWWZERS SO INVINCIBLE (completely ignores that they got BTFO 200 years later and were never relevant again)"

>>201483770
2 1 3 4 5

>>201483832
This

>>201484253
ah i didn't mean to imply that
i just don't really think it's fair to compare classical era killers to modern ones

>>201484667
genghis and his suborbinates had total strategic and organisational ability the only thing they could not achieve was building any culture and not being subhuman genociders

Julius Caesar > Alexander the Great > Napoleone di Buonaparte > Adolf Hitler > Chinggiz Khan

>>201485004
Shitler is so far below the others it's not even funny

>>201484667
Historylets are literally the first ones to diminish the Mongol Empire and its role in shaping medieval trade and warfare

sometimes i wonder if asia would be ahead of europe right now had genghis khan not done what he did

>>201484667
genghis khan is the single most impactful figure in human history
he is a genocidal maniac, but you can't deny his impact

>>201485086
Asia was ahead of Europe irl and still got gapped

>>201484863
Yeah I agree given that modern population is hundreds of times higher than ancient

File: 1920px-Genghis_Khan_empir(...).png (578 KB, 1920x1242)

578 KB PNG

>>201484928
>genghis and his suborbinates had total strategic and organisational ability
Which crappy 15 minute youtube video did you watch?
>>201485080
> the Mongol Empire
First of all, we aren't talking about the Mongol empire as a whole, but about Genghis. I think people really overestimate the extent of Mongol conquests at his death. The absolute farthest they had any sort of control over was Central Asia.
>and its role in shaping medieval trade and warfare
If you are talking about the later Mongol empire at its biggest extent, then yeah it would obviously have an impact... just like any other huge empire. The Ottomans were far more influential in any sense and I don't see people making retarded claims like >>201485112 about Osman I.

>>201483770
Muhammad (pbuh) is number one

What cultural impact did Genghis Khan have? Genuinely asking because I don't know.

Regarding their legacy and what cultural impact they left I'd rank them Caesar > Alexander > Napoleon > Hitler

Napoleon > Alexander > Caesar

don't care about the other two faggots

>>201483770
GOD TIER
Chinggis Khan
for wiping out millions of muzzshits and christkikes

mediocre tier
alexander and Ceaser
they both let allowed jewbrahkikes to exist

kike golem tier
napolean and shitler

>>201484192
He can go to jail for saying his name

>>201486002
i read a book. genghis operated very differently to the steppe barbarian stereotype 4cucks (you) who watch pop history have. he had sound strategic sense and subordinates like Subutai and Jebe would not engage in battles where they were disadvantaged because they could not replenish their mongol numbers and were far from home. Either Mongols under Genghis were experts at supplying and reinforcing each other's armies on the move or everyone else at the time was laughably ill-disciplined baited by simple feints and feigned retreats
>>201487061
>What cultural impact did Genghis Khan have?
None. their culture was parasitic in adopting practises from those they conquered

>Napoleon (the most Faustian, crowned HIMSELF emperor and refused to give up and made a comeback even after being exiled)
>Alexander (would be 1st had he marched onto India and genocided all jeets)
>Julius Caesar (idk why he's even here, should have been Scipio)
>Genghis Khan (meaningless chimpout)
>Hitler (chuds lost)

Alexander the GOAT
Chinkish Khan
Napoo
Hitler
JC

Hitler could be moved to second based on aesthetics alone

>>201483770
Winner,winner,winner,loser and loser

>>201483884
I'm pretty sure Napoleon didn't have a beak longer than his face

>>201483770
Alexander
Genghis
Napoleon = Caesar
Shitler

Genghis looked like Connor Mcgregor. It's true, he had red hair and green eyes. Look it up, he wa a huwite man.

Hannibal > Everyone else

>>201483770
3
7
6
7
3

>>201483770
>Napoleon
>Caesar
>Genghis Khan
>Alexander
>
>
>
>dog shit
>Hitler

>>201483770
chinggis > caesar > nappy > Alex > adolf

>>201483770
alexander
napoleon
caesar
genghis
hitler

>ITT: Sons of Cain, eaters of grain, seethe at the avenger of Abel.

Fuck rice, fuck wheat, fuck barley. Chinggis was righting an ancient wrong.

>>201485004
>Napoleone di Buonaparte
There's no "di", even if the family got a title of nobility for 20 years.

Everyone clowns on the big H because he lost but none of the others faced 100k tanks and strategic bomber fleets whilesurrounded from all sides, it was a different time.

>>201489609
Tengri my lord....

>>201483770
Genghis Khan > Alexander the Great > Napoleon > Caesar > Hitler
>>201488111
Caesar lost.

>>201489686
his retards for making enimies on all side

Alexander > Genghis
Shit-tier tie between Thepooplion and Faecer
Shitler

>>201489933
Napoleon and Caesar losing had a bigger world impact than Alexander and Genghis winning

>>201483770
Napoleon
Alexander the great
Genghis Kahn
The statue guy I don't know
Soydolf Hitler

Hitler losing meant nothing because it was just his barbarism being subsumed tby the actual emerging world civilizations of the time from the east and west. For Hitler to be a historical figure he would have to be the barbarian that won, like Genghis Khan.
Napoleon and Caesar losing are significant because they championed the highest ideals and civilization of their time, and even after being devoured by the reactionary forces their influence still stood over their enemies.

>>201490315
I didn't rank them by world impact but by whether or not they were able to achieve their stated goals. There might even be an argument to put Hitler over Caesar (if it was Augustus, I would have put him above Genghis Khan).

>>201483770
anyone who doesn't put alexander 1 is lying

>>201490599
He didn't affect world history in any way that Cyrus hadn't already

>>201489364
when a general dedicates his entire career to one goal and fails it means he can't ever be #1.

>>201483770
>5, conquest doesn't mean much if you die early and can't actually rule over what you conquered
>10, the beacon of civilization
>-10 he only destroyed and set humanity back
>8, glorious man, but -1 for maintaining slavery and -1 for losing
>-10 the main reason why everything is so shit nowadays

>>201483832
Good rank

>>201483770
1. Hitler
Came within a hair's breadth of making Germany the most powerful nation on Earth and changing history forever. If Britain had accepted his alliance then the whole world would be under Aryan supremacy forever.

2. Napoleon
Self made man who became Emperor and was unstoppable against all Europe for twenty years. Despite his posturing he didn't really have a plan for Europe besides enlarging France and it was all undone after his fall.

3. Alexander
Conquered the world's largest empire at the time in the space of a decade. Died in the full blaze of youth while planning new conquests. Although the hellenic world he created would slowly be undone his star still shines bright.

4. Genghis Khan
Annihilated the Islamic presence in Central Asia for a century and his successors would follow his lead and obliterate China and the Middle East and terrorise Russia. He left almost no legacy outside of destruction.

5. Enslaved and destroyed the freedom loving Gauls while slandering them as primitives despite them being technologically and culturally on par with Rome. He did this when they posed no threat and then proceeded to attempt to do the same to the Britons but failed. Ended up overthrowing his nations government and favouring Jews and foreigners before he was stabbed to death by freedom loving patriots. His successor, the cowardly Octavian would follow up his legacy of making Rome a deracinated, brown, slavemongering shithole.

>>201490977
What legacy did Alexander leave, other than fractured hellenic states that would eventually be subsumed by their local cultures? How is that any different than the Mongols leaving fractured Genghisid states that were subsumed by the locals? Only Genghis Khan did it on a greater scale.

>>201491145
The hellenism in the middle east lasted hundreds of years and led to religions like Christianity, Manicheanism, Neoplatonism, Gnosticism. The reason Muslims and Christians studied Aristotle was because of Alexander.

Alexander
Caesar
Hitler
Ghengis
Napoleon

>>201491392
Christianity is arose from the hebrews, the others are irrelevant.
Genghisid states lasted centuries in Central Asia and the Middle East and gave birth to others like Timur and the Mughals. The golden horde lasted 260 years and is what facilitated the rise of Moscow and modern Russia.

File: IMG_8643.jpg (111 KB, 521x752)

111 KB JPG

>>201490491
Julius Caesar, the Roman Dictator, not the Brazilian footballer.

>>201490669
Greek culture dominated the Eastern Mediterranean for more than 1,000 years because of Alexander the Great's victories.

>>201483770
theyre already ranked best to worst

>>201491598
Christianity is entirely Greek influenced, it does not spring from Hebrew pure.

Those Genghisid states achieved a lot destruction and not much else. The Mughals and the Timurids helped Europeans though by crippling the Ottomans and the Hindus respectively.

>>201483770
10
10
10
Got btfo but was pretty based 9/10
Got btfo but was pretty based 9/10

>>201486906
Salam

>>201486906
Unironically is one of the best warlords in terms of both conquest and lasting influence

>>201483770
Julius
Addi
Chinggis
Napoleon
Alexander

>>201489686
his army's effectiveness suffered whenever he was actively managing them
>>201490265
Persians were in decline and alexander was carried hard by his dad's legacy, he also kinda stagnated after that initial win while Khan kept gathering steam after he won China.

>>201492424
not really, from watching tikhistory, i realize most of his generals are stupid as fuck

>>201486002
I didn't know he pushed to Korea. What could have been...

>>201483770
Alexander>Genghis>Caesar>Napoleon>Hitler

>>201490599
Hard carried by his daddy's army

>>201483770
HITLER NUM 1
AND GENGHIS WAS WHITE. MONGOLIANS TURNED ASIAN BECAUSE OF CHINESE WIVES.

>>201496955
MONGS WERE YAMNAYA THAT WENT THE OTHER WAY

>>201489933
Lost? He literally was named a god after the assassination

>>201497281
HITLER IS THE ONLY ONE TO UNITE THE COUNTRY BY HIMSELD, BRING THEM UP FROM TOTAL DEPRESSION, ANE FIGHT THE ABSOLUTE ENTIRETY OF THE WORLD

YALL SO DUMB

ABOUT 120 COUNTRIES HAD WAR DECLARED ON HITLER. THATS BILLIONS OF MEN

HOW MANY MEN HAVE U FOUGHT


HITLER ALSO KILLLED UR ANCESTOR IN WW1

THE DEBATE IS NOT EVEN CLISE. U LOST. UR DONEM

>>201490762
>slavery bad
go back to haiti, subhuman

>>201483770
Definitive list:
Napoleon
Genghis
Caesar
Alexander

Don't know why Hitler is on this list, he wasn't a military general.

>>201497825
SLAVERY NATURAL. FIRST SLAVE BORN WHEN 1 VS 1 SOME MAN LOST AGAINST THE OTHER N THE FORMER WAS TURNED INTO HISNSERVANT

>>201497281
by Augustus, the actual winner. If it wasn't for him, Caesar's name would have been virtually unknown today.

>>201497996
HE WAS MORE DAN A GENERAL. HE WAS A SOLDIER IN WW1. N HE FOUGHT 120+ COUNTRIES IN WW1

UR A BITCH

>>201498057
Augustus was a politician, it was his buddy Agrippa winning him his battles

>>201483866
>who by kills should be at the top of that list
Nah, ancient numbers are always hugely inflated

>>201498184
nothing about the OP implies that I was supposed to rank them by their military accomplishments.

>>201483770
No Tamerlan? Fuck you

>>201498057
Agustus or Marcus Anthony both relied on caesar fame to attain power
The senate would never win this battle

>>201490977
This is what happens when you get your history information from tiktok. You sound like an idiot, but that's ok, we've all been there. Here's some book recommendation. The Campaigns of Napoleon, The Mongol Art of War, Alexander the Great by Robin Lane Fox and Gallic Wars by Caesar. If you're gonna admire the Nazis at least pick someone who wasn't an absolute retard like Hitler.

>>201498308
He won the civil war, his assassins were out of touch senators that could read the room and also died shortly after
It's like saying Lincoln lost because a retard shot him

>>201483770
1. Genghis Khan (my ancestor)
rest can fuck off

>>201498684
*that couldn't read

>>201483770
1. Temujin - Self made man that created one of the greatest empires the world has ever seen, certainly the greatest his peoples ever have, to the point that they dominate the image of steppe tribes to this day even though they were always a diverse bunch. He also had one of the greatest military minds on his team to ever live, Subutai humbled Europe on a scouting mission with a trifling force and they eventually brought China to its knees. Only part you have to fault him for is all the book burning and brutality which all but one or two on the list is a point shared by all of them, though he may trump them all in the scale at which he did it. For all the argument for no culture and failing empires, out of these five his empire endured the longest, barring #2 depending how you want to count it, but I'd argue that was Augustus' doing.
2. Julius Caesar - While the ultimate result of his efforts was a power trip that would choke to death the Republic of Rome, one might argue past the point of Sulla that was just inevitable and he was just the right guy in the right place at the right time. Barring his inglorious end, he was a military genius that conquered all of Gaul which was not a done thing at any stage. That he managed to do that, while also politicking his way around all kinds of debts and treasons is a testament to the man's skill and intellect. He also did good work with stuff like the calendar that endures to our day, so you might say his impact endures in some way, certainly his PR stunt with the autobiography is a gift for historians, however biased.
3. Napoleon Bonaparte - Brilliant strategist that pretty much set the new standard for warfare and though an opportunist like Julius, ended up disrupting the power structure of europe to such a degree that we can reliably trace its effects to the modern day. He dreamed bigger than he could reach and inevitably that checked him, you can't wage a war with the world, ask #5.
1/2

>>201498587
Hitler objectively conquered most of Europe, from Normandy to Minsk. Even if you argue that he lost, so did Napoleon.

>>201483770
Khan>Alexander>>>everybody else

Napoleon and Hitler lost, and Caesar didn't conquer much clay

>>201498929
He objectively only defeated France which was completely spent after WW1 and a bunch of irrelevant states

>>201498460
so what? Alexander wouldn't have been in a position to conquer half the known world if his father hadn't happened to be a king. But it wasn't his father who conquered half the known world. It was him.
>>201498684
it's not like that at all because Lincoln's goal was to subjugate the South, which he did successfully. The South did not rise again.
Caesar's goal was to fix the mess that was the Late Republic. The fact that he got himself killed and Rome spent the next few decades bouncing from one civil war to the next is proof that he failed.

>>201483770
>>201498845
4. Alexander - I can understand how by impact alone one could argue he potentially trumps any of these guys. But I'd say when you look past the legendary war streak and see what he left behind, he has depressingly little to show for all that warring. I can't speak all too much to Hellenization, I'd say he was just as likely plundering a population that had been beaten down by a millennium of Assyrian oppression and his efforts did little more to introduce the west to them that trade hadn't already. I digress, the ultimate result of his endless war was a lot of land and no effort at infrastructure or a stable power structure. He was taught to do battle and left with a perfect war machine by his father and mother, he didn't earn it for himself thus he never learned the art of state craft and thus his "to the strongest" answer to who should inherit was very dramatic, but it was a death sentence to his empire, such as it was. It died as soon as he did.

5. Adolf Hitler - A strong public speaker but a weak military strategist, his entire empire was built on a corrupt oligarchy that had no solid structure whatsoever and relied on deceiving its population to further its goal which wasn't even primarily the interest of his nation. Sure he thought it was, but I can think my farts are a panacea, doesn't mean I'm justified in selling them. The Jewish issue lost him the war perhaps moreso than the rest of his delusions and he was ultimately a miserable leader. He brought his people to ruin to fulfill an ideology that didn't achieve any of the goals it intended to. The Kaiser had a better chance than him and while the blitzcrieg was an impressive effort, it was never going to end well, they got a false positive with france and thought it would apply everywhere. Worse than alexander he couldn't win the war, worse than Napoleon he didn't even learn from his mistakes in russia. You don't fight a two front war, it's just stupid.
2/2

>>201499308
He did end the civil war which was reopened by the conspirators because they couldn't accept how the republic was a dying husk and that the population wanted stability ensured by a single man at the top

SHITler JOBS to all of those CHADs

1.Napoleon
2.Ceasar
3.Hitler
4.Genghis
5.Alexander
By penis size

>>201498929
The difference between Hitler and Napoleon is that Napoleon actually commanded his army and participated in the war. Hitler didn't conquer anything, it was his military generals that did. They were the ones who planned and executed military operations, Hitler just approved them. If you knew anything about WW2 history other than the surface level material then you'd know that Hitler was an idiot.

>>201499308
>My son ask for thyself another Kingdom, for that which I leave is too small for thee

>>201483770
Napoleon>Genghis Khan>Alexander The Great>Julius Caesar>map painting autists>Hitler

>>201499587
Napoleon was also a vastly better administrator. Every european monarchy kept his innovations after they managed to beat him

>>201499388
blitzkrieg*

>>201499413
I don't deny him his victories. What I'm saying is that his winning streak eventually came to an end, and Augustus's never did. His lasted far longer, too, and his influence on the future of Rome far eclipses Caesar's.
Would it have been possible for Augustus to do what he did without Caesar? No, of course not. But Caesar himself wouldn't have been able to do the things he did if it wasn't for those who came before him so this line of argument is moot.

>>201499749
This is an important point about him.
For as absurd as his dreams were, he did a lot of good for the places he conquered. It's important to consider the benefit of a ruler to his people. Did he leave them better off than when he got them. With him it seems pretty clear the answer is yes.

>>201483832
Caesar above Alexander otherwise this.

Augustus>>>Julius>Napoleon>Hitler>Alexander>Gengis

Napoleon was the most interesting and had the most interesting life among all these. If you disagree you’re a pleb or at least a non-Westerner. But all of them were inferior warlords and politicians relative to Augustus Caesar.

>>201500079
>>201500138
If augustus was on the list he would probably top it since he is what actually gave rome its push to be what it was for as long as it was. He not only outplayed the competition but he went on to create a structure that endured through time arguably until the fall of the byzantine empire in the 15th century.
That alone, while not solely his effort you could well argue outdoes all the others put together.
Though he was a kinkshamer he was in the running for greatest leader in history, I'm sure you could quibble over that but he gets on the scoreboard without a doubt.

>>201500003
It was a tie honestly I might swap em if this thread shows up again in a week and then swap em again
Caesar would be above because he didn't inherit a literal kingdom and powerful army and we have much much more details of his day to day military and political genius, but at the same time Alexander making it all the way to India from the west is something that would never be done again even by the vastly more powerful Roman empire and his name was synonymous with "conqueror" in the west for the next 2000 years

Both are massive "what if" too

>>201500454
He was probably pound for pound the most militarily, politically, and economically successful man who ever lived. Other empires have encompassed more territories but were never more advanced, multifaceted, or successful across the board.

>>201498929
Most of the countries he conquered were weak. His only true achievement was conquering France. When confronted with a proper military he got his ass kicked hard.
Napoleon grabbed a country in complete ruin after the reign of terror and basically managed to turn it into a world superpower. He went up against the strongest militaries in the world at the time and kicked their ass.

>>201500722
>Caesar would be above because he didn't inherit a literal kingdom and powerful army
you're right, Philip II already laid the groundwork for what was to come

>>201500776
>Napoleon grabbed a country in complete ruin after the reign of terror and basically managed to turn it into a world superpower.
so just like hitler?

Anyone saying Alexander inherited his greatness ,dont know what they're talking about
Alexander had to supress greek revolts and before the battle of gaugamela his cause was damned as lost
His free tax policy and war logistic its what made him get as far as he had gone

>>201501461
It's not that much that he straight up inherited greatness in my opinion but only that compared to the other ones in the list he did inherit more
Caesar was from a family that had sided against Sulla and on the lower end of their social order
Napoleon was a very minor nobleman
Temujin/Gengis from a lesser tribe and spent time as a fugitive
Hitler was a literally who

Alexander wouldn't have gone so far if he wasn't brillant but to even be in a position where you have to "supress Greek revolts" in the first place means you are a ruler from the get go
A ruler in a very fragile position maybe, but a king by birthright nevertheless.
Which is much more inheritance than the other 4 even though yeah he also inherited problems

>>201483770
Stalin should be included and be #1. He ruled over more of Europe on his deathbed than any other man in history.