for anyone who doesn't know, Napoleon defeated all of allied Europe, not once, twice or even thrice, but 6 times. All of Europe formed an alliance, tried 6 times and failed, when they did win they sent Napoleon to a certain isolated island with soldiers guarding him, he made the soldiers switch sides and came back to conquer Europe out of confinement, that's not the full story though, in all of his wars that he fought, his army was outnumbered every single time and once won a battle in which his army was outnumbered 1 to 10, but he won anyway. That's how good he was, surely the best military strategist of all time
Very true to a certain extent, during the battle of Dresden as soon as Napoleon arrived and they heard the cries of Vive L'Empereur. The Allied leaders despite having a superiory in numbers contemplated retreating because of one man's presence.
@@enpaikazy1977 Don't believe the lies made and popularized by the English. The Trachenberg Plan was made for a reason, it was because of Napoleon's presence that they decided not to engage him and retreat during the war of 1813. You literally have historical evidence of his presence highly boosting the morale of troops yet you cling to these Anglo lies.
@@SlappoLS dude, you realize that centuries after he died, random people all around the world are talking about him. Who is gonna talk about you centuries after you die? Probably not even your family, what about random people at the other part of the world..
@sandipandutta8071 no he died before he ever lost a battle lol,and was probably in coma when he was mummified. Idk where u ever heard he lost in India lol he died before he lost a battle
@@marshellparker5555 getting your 80%army killed in a battle as a conqueror against one of the 20 kings of region u gonna conquer seems like a loss to me
He ran away after he fought the battle with porus which was the entry to the golden bird, he won that war but guptas were the next challenge which was far more powerful than what takshshila was so he withdrew, ending his campaign.
If it was same technology same training Alexander has proven many times that his name wasnt aquired through birth. He outwitted the most if we would assume Napoleon had to fight in archaic and classical equipment he would get beaten even more because the formations napoleon used were only meant for Line Infantry and the Hoplites excelled in that also lets not forget the impact of battle morale. Alexander the great had his own cavalry Unit that he used as shock units but not as a general but in a role of an Officer so he was in the battle itself fighting alongside you.@@Ehrle6969
@@lumosity5163 there strategies and techniques are based on the type of warfare they did and the equipment they had at the time. Napoleonic warfare doesn’t work with swords and shields
Although I respect Tristans opinion, I have to go with Alexander. He also holds a title that the others don’t. He never lost a battle trough out his conquest, in 8 years Alexander had conquered 80% of the known world at the time. He’s empire stretched from Greece and the Balkans to Egypt and through all of the Middle East and then to India. All of this he conquered in 8 years without loosing a single battle, one more thing that people tend to forget is that Alexander was also heavily outnumbered facing 100 000 while his army only consisted of 37 000. After he was done in the east he planed to go west, unfortunately he lived to be 32, he never had the chance to go west where he would surely have won and changed history dramatically, he would in all likelihood have erased the idea of the Roman Empire. Alexander was not only a great general but also a great inventor, building on what the Spartans had already created he upgraded the phalanx and made it his own trademark. The phalanx was later upgraded once again by the romans and is a big reason why the romans were so successful in their conquers. Last but not least he has inspired more commanders, kings or generals than any other general in history, famously Julius Caesar cried in front of his statue at the same age that Alexander died criticising himself on the basis that Alexander had conquered everything at his age.
The premature death of Alexander was so significant because there would have been a very good chance he would have ventured west and conquered Rome, which was a small state, and life would be very different now.
Alot of the credit of the Phalanx belongs to his father Phillip and I would argue Phillip would have maybe achieved what Alexander would have anyway, may have not had the same ambitions of world domination as him but that's part of Alexander's charm, he unlike many other possessed the true essence of the Homeric spirit, It seemed he longed to die in a glorious manner on the battlefield which he showcased time and time again, which i think his father may not have had if he had survived. He is definitely my favourite among military commanders but a certain bias leans in his favour definitely. There is and never will be a King like Alexander to lead from the front is why he is number. His siege warfare, improvisation tactics are also unparalleled but surely we can't assume they were all his ideas.
Alexander was also lucky due to his Father Phillip II building everything for him and his Mother telling him he is a demi-god while having Aristotle as his teacher.
Alexander had no rightful successor. If there is anything his successors did, they destroyed Alexander's gains and fought against each other (Wars of Diadochi)
@@fantommorbius5175 Then why was he speaking Greek and had a Greek name? Why was his teacher Athenian? Makedonia was a Greek kingdom just like Sparta and Mykines. Wake the fxck up
@anuskumar3202 HE didn't assign a "heir" but the kingdoms that came from his generals are known as the successor kingdoms, in history the diadochi have been called successors, I'm not the first to say that. I'm simply stating the death of Alexander started an entire "age" throughout Europe and Asia.
The Hammer and Anvil exists even today. Napoleonic tactics are an evolution of Alexanders theory. The idea of Marching in small armies ( corps) comes from Alexanders far Eastern campaigns.
It is true prince maurice of orange adapted alexander the great’s tactics into musket warfare in the late 1500’s (volley fire). Napoleon was creative, but not the founder of marching warfare
Yeah Napoleon is a student of warfare and this video is like a Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen type comparison. Napoleon would beat them all but still.
@@RUTHLESSambition5No they didn’t, the Haitians had a great commander that was nicknamed “Black Napoleon” but the two never met, nor was there any battle fought in the European fashion, Black Napoleon later died in a French prison
It should be noted that he crowned HIMSELF as Emperor, it is said that he snached the crown from the hands of the pope and crowned himself to show his defiance towards the pontiff, imagine conquering europe and just placing a crown on top of your own head, truly a badass. He was also unintentionally charismatic, he wasnt actually good with people but hed unintentionally say humerous things, one example is: Nepoleon was taking cover from canon fire alongside one of his soldiers, a canon flew right by their heads and knocked off the hat of the soldier, Nepoleom then said to the soldier "Its good you weren't a foot taller" This is why his men followed him.
Ghangis khan was so charismatic with all the people beneath him his rule killed the most people in history. His body was hidden by people so loyal they killed theirself after they buried him. Then the people who saw them kill thierself killed theirself.
Interestingly, all 3 are famous for being geniuses at Mobile warfar. Alexander won because he maneuvered his forces masterfully, concentrating them at differrnt points to inflict massive damage. Napoleon used more mobile detactchments for better logistics and maneuverability, and Ghengis Khan as defeated his enemies by maneuvering to create breakthroughs and overrun the enemy
Interestingly enough, Napoleon got his mobile warfare from Khalid ibn Walid. Just search it up. Khalid’s tactics were so superior, it was the main reason why he could defeat the much more superior(in numbers and equipment) Romans and Persians in such a short time.
Genghis khan is a greater emperor than those two because he was able to stabilize and unite his empire in a way where even after his death, his empire was able to stay united for multiple generations. Can’t be said the same for Alexander and Napoleon, because their empires collapsed as fast as they rose.
Nah napoleon without doubt France was a weak shit hole and terrible army when he took it over and literally the whole of Europe allied to fight France 6 times and lost every time
@@paddypibblet846your argument is a presentism fallacy. It doesn’t matter which one is most visible in 2024. Genghis Khan and his descendants would reshape the globe significantly moreso than the other 2. The Mughals, and the Ottomans, the Golden Horse, the Timurids, and Kublai Khan. Nowhere was safe from Mongol attack and expansion from Japan to India, Europe and the Middle East.
@@paddypibblet846quite a lot actually. Turkey wouldn’t exist without mongol expansion. The Ottoman Empire was very significant. Also the Mughal empire was very significant and after they lost India it led to Britain filling the power vacuum and reshaping India completely. Mongol influence even affected south east Asia and places like Indonesia. The mongols under Genghis reshaped the entire world dude. I don’t know what you mean by “the west” but Napoleon and Alexander don’t compare to that. Alexander spread Hellenic Greeks to places as far as Bactria but was not as long lasting however to be fair Ptolemaic Egypt is a result of Alexander. It would go Genghis > Alexander > Napoleon
Alexander. He conquered Egypt, and when he died, the Egyptians insisted that he be buried there because he was their Pharaoh. As a conquering entity, he was revered as their supreme leader. If that isn't HONOR, I don't know what is.
Then take Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achemanid Persian Empire. The man is seen as a prophet and saviour in all 3 Abhrahamic religions. In Old Testament Isiah 45:1-7 the God of Israel calls upon Cyrus to free the world from oppression and in Islam he is Zal Qurnayan the righteous man. There's a reason his seen this way and that's because he: • Created Human Rights making it a law that all people under his rule regardless of Race, Religion or Gender was to be treated as equals • Created the world's first superpower with 44% of world population and half the world's GDP. • Was such a benevolent and successful King his greatest enemies the Greeks saw him as the perfect ruler. Herodotus said he was a man as close to a living God as could be due to his grace and Xenophon wrote an entire book on how to be like Cyrus the perfect ruler. • Freed the Jews from Babylonian Exile and Oppression, returned them to their home in Levant and rebuilt their temple for them. He repeated this act all over his empire • When he declared that not even a mouse shall be harmed when be conquered Babylon and returned the Babylonian Gods to their temples, the people he had conquerored celebrated and threw him a festival. Imagine the people who you conquered throw a part for you. And talking of Alexander the Great, the man who would fell his empire 200 years later. Alexander demanded to see Cyrus tomb and when he found it broken upon and pillaged Alexander openly wept seeing how the Great man had been disrespected. Cyrus the Great King of Justice 🔥
@@elijahtory9932the British destroyed Napoleon's fleet at Aboukir Bay thus preventing reinforcements from France reaching Napoleon, imagine you're trapped 3310km from your country with no way of receiving help. It's hard to believe Napoleon managed to reach the Levant with a hostile population and terrain and the British constantly harassing him.
@gxb1otty bro it's how the world works. You're like 16? There's been 70 years of cigarettes in movies working exactly like this. Now it's influences with cigarettes.
Another thing to add is that Napoleon wasn't just the best military leader of all time, but he was a great economist and handled the french situation so well as a ruler of the people while still being able to fight battles
Napoleon did, both in the sense of creating the doctrines the army applied but also in the more literal way and not just one time, in 1813 just after the failed invasion of Russia, he had to train a army on the march and was able to defeat a army of veterans from Russia and a modernized from Prussia.
@kostaspapas698 how is the whole army of ancient Greece a city worth army? Alexander inherited the best army in the world from his father. Khan had to built his army almost from scratch.
@@Okpia72 yes FINALY someone says it. And 9 times outta 10 Napoleon fought against incompetent nobles leading other nations armies.Khan was just built everything from ground up he literally found a nation of mongolia and built a Empire and he helped the environment.
Napoleon has always been one of my favorite historical figures solely for the fact that he was one of if not the last great conquerors of the world to be on the front lines with his men
My brother in Christ. Ghenghis khan literally ENDED dynasties, empires, got together 100s of clans who hated each to make a single army, that dominated until he died of sickness.
The only reason Napoleon is the best is because his adversaries were at the peak of their fighting ability and had extremely competent generals like Wellington or Archduke Charles.
Yeah, people dont know his background. He was somewhat enslaved or captured when he was kid. Later on taking his only loss against his best friend in early stages of his leadership. As you said, merging those clans/families that want different things is very hard. I have written in another comment. Mongols mail system was extraordinary for its time, making it possible for them to communicate faster. Hell, he sent his two generals and only 10-15k expeditonary forces to europe to check what's there and they have captured near half of europe, and possibly would have captured all germany and maybe lowlands if khan wouldn't have died during the europe conquest, keep in mind he was in conquest in east during this time.
@@a_little_flame589u are a bot u can't proof someone is a trafficker without proof who are the victim and wat are their name which country did they come from pathetic 🤣🤣🤣
@@steffen4970 that might be true the difference is Germany had allies for most of their fight and a leader who puppets a country not willing to accept defeat and died without honor while Napoleon fights and makes the plan like a general
@@kingamante8419germany had very few capable allies.... the army they created is insane for the short period and dont forger we use all their inventions😂
@@karaghanascythianslayer3822 napoleon never fought in the haitian revolution... he couldn't invade england without a Fleet and he won in Spain, just his marshals couldn't keep it while he was busy in eastern europe ^^
@@polyperchon4511 so he just let his whole entire empire collapse without even fighting & y’all see him as a tough guy? 🤣😂🤣 To y’all in Europe he is the toughest but to Africans & African Americans he was a useless joke!
“Genghis Khan still existed in this era”. Bro, Alexander the Great lived around 330 BC and Genghis Khan around 1200 AD. That’s not the same era 😂 it’s literally 1500 years apart. Alexander was unstoppable in his era and the same goes for Genghis Kan. They both revolutionised warfare in ways unknown to the world at the time and that’s why they were so successful. 💀
@@luckyxiong5766 it still is not comparable, the mongols utilised armor, horse archers and artillery (to name a few things) that was not even thought of in the bronze age.
I was just about to say that 😂😂😂 Tristan is stupid as fuck and dosen't know history. Plus Alexander's troops relied mostly on their sarrisa their 12 fool long spear and their shields.
@@peterherrman5092Alexander reign wasn't in the bronze age my dude 😀 he was already in the steel age. Even the iron age ended i. 500 Bc and Alexander lived in the 300's Bc and tone BC was dated backwards.
Genghis Khan is still the greatest - some of his tactics he introduced may not have a name but were unique to the mongols - 1 example was catapulting the dead bodies that they first set on fire and then flung into wherever they were trying to invade
They only learning history from youtube. Khan got enslaved during his childhood, no one seems to know this, suprising. I love Alexander, but his dad was emperor
The great Cyrus the man that ruled the strongest empire in the human history was from royal linage but was raised a farmers son. Because of some sort prophecy from the emperor of the time he was meant to die. But the one who was tasked with killing him took pity and left him aat the door or something of a farmer family that couldn't have children because of some sort of illness from one of the two
Ironically Napoleon was as well coming from a poor Corsican family and making his way up to the top of a country where typically positions are given out men of upstanding last names rather than skill-full leaders
@@dagerb9508Not only was he relatively poor by his standards, he was also on debt. After his father passed away from the same fate that would later kill Napoleon he left his family in a lot of debt.
I completely disagree. Mongol warriors were fierce that is true but genghis Khan was not khan from the beginning. He was stolen everything he supposed to own by someone from hes own tribe and even enslaved by chinese when he was young. He didnt learn to write he didnt learn any warfare tactics or any method to govern people. After he escaped from slavery he gathered people and become chieftain of few people. You could say its almost like modern day gang because thats just how few man he had then he defeated every single mongol tribes. That achievement is almost like one gang in new York defeated usa army head on and took control of the country. After he united all mongols he took revenge on chinese countries(at that era there were more than 3 chinese counrry). After that he finally got piece and trying to govern hes country then some stupid mayor form khwarazmian empire killed 500 or more merchants form mongol and took the loot. Genghis Khan send messanger and messanger killed as well. So war to take revenge happened again and shit happened all of a sudden mongol empire happened.
While this is true for" Napoleonic wars," because of how much of an impact Napoleon had. Napoleonic Warfare/tactics is the name of the tactics and style of Warfare used at time and were named after him. Especially after he was finally defeated. The countries of Europe learned from years of battling with him and studying his armies after. They took and built upon Napoleon's tactics/ideas for many things like artillery battery's, dividing and conquering tactics with the new age firepower ect, and applied these concepts into their own armies. Greatly impacting the future of Warfare.
Napolean also gave the modern world its basis for law, i rarely see ppl mention it, he was skilled both in the sword and pen, great intellectual for sure.
Alexander inherited the best army in the world.😬 Temujin was not even the greatest general in his own army ☠️ Napoleon is the greatest military genius of all time, while creating the most popular legal system in the world today 😳
I heard he beat 2 empires, but i also heard they were weakened after decades of endless wars so he was just there at the right place and time, tho napoleon fought all european superpowers for almost 2 decades, that’s not just 2 superpowers, that’s an entire continent he fought, and for the record, france was wrecked by revolutions and instability yet napoleon still won 6 times, yeah not even close
@@johnnyboy5708he was the one that crippled them both Persians and romans were extinct and revived many times but never were the same after him and im a iranian
@@Arad-u1q the arab conquest began in 633, the last war the byzantine and persians had was in 602-628, do the math and see if they have time to recover, for info both sides loss 50,000-70,000 in that war and weakened their economy, meaning they’re crippled before the arab conquest began
It’s Ganghis Khan for sure. Every person in these comments has his blood in them today and he ruled the strongest army to ever exist. He’s still ruling the world today.
@@s66s46it’s not every person and it’s not some. .5% of the worlds population got his blood that’s a whole empire of people my guy that’s literally millions
@cheeminthao7967 Stop watching Netflix if you don't have the ability to filter what is bullshit and what's not! Netflix is one of the biggest lgbtq bullshit propaganda producer! And even if he was gay that don't changes the fact that he conquered almost forth of the earth! He imparted knowledge to those who he conquered and to this day they are finding objects in excavations that proves this! It's blasphemy to even compare him with anybody else!
For those who keep mentioning khalid, please its not even close, he beat two empires, that’s cool and all but remember that those two were weakened by their recent war, napoleon on the other hand led an unstable empire to victory from the very start of the war against all the superpowers of the continent and won 6 wars, yes he lose in the end but their skills are way far from each other, in mathematical ranking, khalid was only around 3rd or 4th but napoleon break the math at 1st place
Napoleon failed in all of his goals, u can’t be serious… Modern day france is still the same as before napoleon. Same with Alexander, Greece is still the same as before he took over. Same with Genghis and Mongolia. Khalid ibn Al-Walid is the sole reason why sunni islam (fastest growing religion) is the world largest religion on earth, he’s the reason why arabic is the third most spoken language on earth, he’s the reason that the arab and Islamic world expanded from France to china. His feat of crippling and ending the two powers of his time, is something that no one did, before and after him… The only match i can find that gets close to khalid is Alexander, another undefeated general (however, i am very skeptical of his Indian campaign). But achievement and influence wise, he’s not even close. Alexander’s language, script, culture, religion are long gone, and only modern day greece could “slightly” represent him.
@@arabos4239 so napoleonic code and military reforms made by napoleon was a joke to u? Almost every western countries and maybe even in every part of the world used the napoleonic code in their law, napoleon is in top 3 most influential figure in the world, 1st is jesus, 2nd prophet of islam, then 3rd is napoleon, u can’t be serious to say that bcuz he failed to his goal it means he didn’t contribute to the world, his shadows loomed over the european revolutions that came after him, many countries that were formed after him based their constitutions he made, also don’t be ridiculous that khalid is what made the arab empire alone, after the fall of rashidun caliphate, it was the umayads who expanded the arab empire from india to spain, the arab empire didn’t reach china, they only halted the tang dynasty’s westward expansion, it wasn’t khalid who made the islam into SECOND largest religion, it was the believers who kept making babies despite poverty, also islam’s driving force as to why they’re the fastest growing religion is bcuz of population growth, christianity’s main driving force is conversion, islam isn’t adding new believers they’re just multiplying themselves, the fastest growing religion in africa is christianity despite arabs being more close to them, so stop pushing ur own narratives and start checking facts bruh, even mathematics agreed napoleon is the best military commander
@@arabos4239 also about the two WEAKENED empires that he “ended” we’re already at the brink of collapse, if u research abt the wars between sassanian and byzantine empire, you’ll see that the wars they fought just before the arab conquest made the two empires weaker than they ever were, they’re already crippled before he came, he is just the last straw that breaks the camel’s back
@@johnnyboy5708 oh again with this nonsensical argument… That happened years before his conquests, and the khalifate had two Civil wars among there territories that also delayed there conquests. Both these empires literally united in a battle against that dude, outnumbered him, and they still lost. That’s like the United States and the Soviet union colliding against Saudi Arabia after the cold war and loosing miserably to them… The arab Islamic conquests are miraculous to this day thanks to Khalid ibn al-Walid. And his influence lasted and dominates the world stage till this day. Can’t say the same for Alexander, Genghis Khan and Napoleon. It’s a joke to compare napoleon to Alexander and Genghis Khan, let alone compare him to the sword of god!
@@johnnyboy5708 napoleon lost twice to his European rivals, once to the Ottoman Empire, he even lost to Haiti for crying out-loud… And you’re putting him above Khalid, Alexander and Genghis Khan? Are you french by any chance?
1. Napoleon - Imo the greatest general of all time due to the fierce opposition he faced time & time again. 2. Alexander - Never lost a battle. Conquered the known world in his time but died young. 3. Genghis Khan - Great general but much of the Mongol’s vast success was due to his generals & sons also.
I'd say Khalid bin Waleed is an even better general though. Never lost a battle, was able to beat both the Roman and Persian empires at the same time with both numbers and logistics disadvantages and worse at all times.
@@sendbob9341 I’m not trying to take anything away from him as a commander, but he is to Muhammad who Subutai is to Genghis Khan. During Subutai’s campaigns in Asia and Europe he conquered more territory than any other commander in history. He is arguably the greatest general of all time, but ultimately the success of his campaign’s are attributed to Genghis Khan, the only difference is Khalid is more popular. For that reason I wouldn’t put them in the same category as Alexander or Napoleon, who only fought in their own name and often led from the front while doing it.
@@JiggaMan1297 I didn't put him in the same category as those conquerors. You did by calling then generals. He is not an emperor, but a general. In any case it's quite a pedantic difference so ino worries either way.
Bruv, I was looking for this comment. He was the best general of all time. With his full trust in Allah and his undefeated strategies, he made two great empires, the Persian and the Roman, fall to their knees.
@@stephenkikon1475he wasn’t an emperor And he is known, just search any “greatest generals of all time” and u’ll see him mentioned everywhere. He was the only undefeated general, who crippled and ended the two major powers of his time (a feat no one did, before and after him). In my opinion, i put him above Alexander and Napoleon, not because he was an undefeated general, but because of his long lasting achievements. He is the reason that the arab and islamic world expanded from france to china. Neither Alexander nor Napoleon had this everlasting influence.
Gengis killed over 10% of the world’s population at the time. In today’s world, (just like accounting for inflation) that number would be 800million. Imagine in today’s day and age, a back water savage country out of nowhere just starts conqueroring everything. One man, genghis khan himself and through his leadership created the largest contiguous empire. Rome was built on millennia and ages of culture and work of the Italian states, Mongol empire was created in one life time, and started to fracture when its progenitor died of illness. The khan also favored daughters over sons since he found an ingenious bloodless way to obtain power within his own ranks. Gengis khan is also the most successful in life in terms of species as a whole because he still and will always have the most descendants in the world. The soldiers he steeled and gave pride to and treated fairly also formed a scouting party to see what was in the west. They found the rus principalities and the scouting party of the mongols managed to subjugate the rus for decades. A bunch of lightly armored short men riding horses, shooting arrows at fully armored European knights, and they got demolished. The trust, lust, reverence of the soldiers to Gengis was unfathomable. The mongols purposely had some of their front lines killed to draw the enemy out of their positions. Most of the killed were volunteers. Who else inspired their men so much they would volunteer to die to become a stepping stone for someone else’s ambitions? Alexander’s ambitions were too high Napoleon was too proud and stubborn Gengis khan made no mistakes
Alexander The Great conquered using mostly fear. "Join us, or we destroy you, and join us anyways." After defeating an army of 200 war elephants, he took the remaining war elephants that survived and included them in his army temporarily. Alexander did not like using war elephants, but he used them as a fear tactic. He liked how they made his army more intimidating. Then he ate them. 😂
@@Sans_Sucre_ajoutéNo he's not lol. Anyone with actual historical knowledge wouldnt claim this and especially not on the basis that someone has a 'warfare' tactic named after him.
What they won’t tell you is a small island called Haiti led by Toussaint Louvrrture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines defeated the mighty French army and Napoleon!!
So a kickboxer with brain damage will give us a history lesson. He didnt even understood the question. Only a kick boxer can think of judging an emperor only on the basis of his military strategy. Being an emperor is not just about waging wars. There is a lot that makes an emperor great and Alexandre is called the great for a reason. His vision, his policies, the way he ruled. Nobody could repeat what he did. Napolean was a great Military General but his capability as a ruler raised a lot of questions.
Still tho genghis khan was no civil humanitarian leader. Alexander the Great was a good leader. Napoleon genuinely was revered and loved in France. So much so that civilians and soldiers alike joined him when he returned from exile. I get what you’re saying but Napoleon is still the right answer.
Napoleon even during his time was a way better leader than those in Austria, Prussia, Spain and Russia. He was a proponent of the french revolution and it's ideals, the Napoleonic code? A working man in france during his time had way more freedom than a Russian serf. Napoleon definitely wasn't the best emperor in history though.
I am laughing my ass off reading the comments here talking about Alexander whose empire stretched just from Greece to northwest India. 😂😂 The probably didn't know the Mongol empire under Hulagu and Kublai was stretched from the whole Korea and China to major part of current Russia in the north, to the whole central Asia and the whole middle east except the current day Saudi, and to the major eastern Europe in their west. They conquered over 2/3 of the whole world during their time. To visualise how strong they were, on their way to crash Baghdad, the Mongols destroyed five civilizations including the Fatimid, Khawarizm and the Hashashins (whom even Salahaddin couldn't defeat them). And that was just like their "side quests" on their way to Baghdad. Alexander didn't got any shit on the Mongols. Only the westerners hyped up Alexander af.
@@georgioskalanidis9091 Nah bro. I think you read that wrong somewhere. When Mongkhe Khan ordered Kublai to invade China and Hulagu to Baghdad and then eventually to central Asia and eastern Europe they divided their armies some marched with Hulagu, some with Kublai and the remaining stayed in Mongol. Hulagu marched down with just over 200k armies, so did with Kublai. They definitely didn't have 10 million armies up there in the mountains of Mongol in the 13th century.
Two different time lines. What you refer as greece to india was all of the known world, and they tought if they kept going they might fall from earth. Both emperors achieved tremendous success. Granted, chengiz came from much more diffuser background, but that doesn't make Alexander lesser. He created numerous of cities and did all of this before he was 33.
@@Arad-u1q You're joking bro.? The Achaemenid empire of Cyrus covered about 5.5million km. The Mongol empire in its peak stretched out to 24 million km. About four or five times larger than Cyrus'. It was not even close. Mongol was the largest empire the history has ever witnessed. That's a fact.
Meanwhile Khaled bin waleed fought a battle with just 15000 soldiers against the Persian army of 150000 and won. He only lost 200 soldiers in that battle and wiped out 1/3rd (50000 soldiers) of the Persian army. Its called the battle of Firaz. Then he did it again at the battle of Yarmouk where he fought the combined roman and persian forces of 140000 and wiping out half of their soldiers with 40000 soldiers at his back. He fought 50 battle and never lost one. Persian empire at that point was 1100 years old and roman empire was 900 years old and within 6 years khaled bin waleed made these two empires vanish. Roman Empire eventually did survive but never truly recovered. He is arguably the best military commander of all time.
lol, impossible! Stop with this nonsense! Any person who is even remotely familiar with Ancient Warfare knows that your story makes no sense whatsoever.
Yeah cause Napoleon wasn't that bad of a guy compared to the other leaders of his time. ,🇦🇹🎨 was an absolute monster, even by the standards of his time.
@@LeMagicienXHe won multiple coalition wars, after a while your bound to lose when all of the great powers keep taking shots at you. The truth is Napoleon's rule was never going to last, they were always going to reform and fight back everytime. But at least Napoleon didnt gas people because they were jewish.
This man clearly has poor knowledge of history if Napoleon is the greatest emperor. Man, he can't even compare with Alexander or Genghis, both of them left a big legacy over the centuries, Alexander even praised as God in the Hellenistic period of Egypt for 300 years. What did Napoleon left? That's like saying a millioner is richer than trillioner. Only big history enthusiasts will know about Napoleon in 300 years, but we know about Alexander even after 2 centuries.
You're smoking crack if you don't think Napoleon is gonna be a recognizable historical future akin Alexander and ghengis the man literally revolutionized modern warfare
@@InTheBlueCorner you're arguing semantics now. It's easy to prove that modern military doctrine borrows and expands upon principals either invented or popularized by Napoleon will it still be recognizable who knows but that doesn't discount that Napoleon has a clearly visible historical effect on society that will be remembered for centuries to come
@@Nugundamsisntforshow There is no semantics here. Napoleon didn't left any greater legacy, not more than just a short historical effect during his livelihood and 150 years after his death. By the greater legacy I mean the legacy that Alexander had left. We can argue that Alexander revolutionised everything, not just an "ancient warfare". Napoleon is a big historical figure for sure, but there is no comparison to the Alexander The Great or Genghis
If i am not mistaken, Alexander created hammer and andvil tactics. What napolean did was also create modern conscription where every frenchmen was a soldier.
Dude khan started off doing tribal warfare with fractured mongol tribes then created an empire and his army learned how to properly siege a castle town when they didn't even know how to deal with it originally. He literally creates that empire out of the mud.
for anyone who doesn't know, Napoleon defeated all of allied Europe, not once, twice or even thrice, but 6 times. All of Europe formed an alliance, tried 6 times and failed, when they did win they sent Napoleon to a certain isolated island with soldiers guarding him, he made the soldiers switch sides and came back to conquer Europe out of confinement, that's not the full story though, in all of his wars that he fought, his army was outnumbered every single time and once won a battle in which his army was outnumbered 1 to 10, but he won anyway. That's how good he was, surely the best military strategist of all time
And then he Napoleon'd all over Europe, truly a napoleonic wars moment
Ty for teaching me something new
Thanks for sharing information 🙏♥️
He win 5 times and losses 3 times . No that great actually . 😂😂
@@anmolsidhu8798lost 2 times not 3
"Napoleon's presence on the battlefield alone, worth 40,000 men"
-Duke of Wellington
Very true to a certain extent, during the battle of Dresden as soon as Napoleon arrived and they heard the cries of Vive L'Empereur. The Allied leaders despite having a superiory in numbers contemplated retreating because of one man's presence.
That’s a lie he was far to short a fighter and was a horrible horse back rider
@@enpaikazy1977 Don't believe the lies made and popularized by the English.
The Trachenberg Plan was made for a reason, it was because of Napoleon's presence that they decided not to engage him and retreat during the war of 1813.
You literally have historical evidence of his presence highly boosting the morale of troops yet you cling to these Anglo lies.
Now lets see Napoleon fight 40.000 men alone.
😂😂😂😂 excellent bs
"I defeated the austria army by simply marching"
-Napoleon Boniparte
died a lepper with nothing to his name
@@SlappoLS he died being forced to live on a island after fighting against the world.. can't fault him for that.
@@SlappoLSdied while being remembered as the greatest military strategist the world has ever seen.
@@drygimangdrminjak8177 true, but look at the state of france now, not a lot to show for all that military strategy
@@SlappoLS dude, you realize that centuries after he died, random people all around the world are talking about him. Who is gonna talk about you centuries after you die? Probably not even your family, what about random people at the other part of the world..
Chingis Khan didn‘t see the downfall of his empire in his lifetime as Napoleon did.
He conquer not ruler. That a minus point for Khan
Not ruler?My boy you should look into that,the only real problem was the succession@@ngochiu8090
@@ngochiu8090 horrendous take
@@SlappoLSIts true tho. Napoleons "Empire" didnt fall under his own fault
@@ngochiu8090 trash take lil bro try again
Gang warfare is named after Ghangis Khan
😂😂😂
Checks out
Gang R...
😂😂😂
👏😂
People don’t understand how terrifying battles would be around Alexander. It’s unfathomable to kill your enemies in such close combat.
Yes, but he weren't an emperor, he was a king, so he shouldn't be in the question
That's how humans done it for 1000s of years before guns
@@paoloconte1733he was a king that fought on the front line. Conquered the known world in an unprecedented fashion. It’s not comparable, at all
@@phoenikos yes, he was. Still he wasn't an emperor. I'm arguing the interview, not history 😂
He also is ignorant about the Macedonian Phalanx which was a innovative battle formation
The interviewer somehow thought Tristan was a historian
Great observation by the way 😂😂True
If you watched the actual fucking video you wouldn't have made this snarky comment
Alexander the great ran away from Nanda empire so he can't really be called great
I could see this being staged, but still cool story
Because Tristan is very knowledgeable about history, and the interviewer did his homework
13 years, alexander conquered from macedon to Egypt to persia all the way to india. Never lost a battle and did it on foot.
he lost repeatedly in india thaths when he left it all
@sandipandutta8071 no he died before he ever lost a battle lol,and was probably in coma when he was mummified. Idk where u ever heard he lost in India lol he died before he lost a battle
@@sandipandutta8071 he didn't even lose at the hydaspes river tho he came close,but he still won. Alexander NEVER lost a battle
@@marshellparker5555 getting your 80%army killed in a battle as a conqueror against one of the 20 kings of region u gonna conquer seems like a loss to me
@@sandipandutta8071 yet he still conquered that king and made him pledge his allegiance to alexander lol stay mad indian kid
Alexander never lost a battle and conquered the known world in ridiculously short period of time.
The Indians kicked his ass
He ran away after he fought the battle with porus which was the entry to the golden bird, he won that war but guptas were the next challenge which was far more powerful than what takshshila was so he withdrew, ending his campaign.
@@kitbag4237 No they didn't.
@@Anonymous-st3gy He and his army withdrew due to them being home sick, even if you win every campaign you still have to travel and fight them.
Stll napoleon managed to deafed austria prussia the rest if the hre netherlands uk italian states and russians at the same time
Technically Alexander started the hellenistic age
Napoleon would destroy his army in few days 😂
@@Ehrle6969 because of advances in military technology
@@mistermood4164if you put them in the same time period but allow them to use their own strategies and techniques who will come out on top?
If it was same technology same training Alexander has proven many times that his name wasnt aquired through birth. He outwitted the most if we would assume Napoleon had to fight in archaic and classical equipment he would get beaten even more because the formations napoleon used were only meant for Line Infantry and the Hoplites excelled in that also lets not forget the impact of battle morale. Alexander the great had his own cavalry Unit that he used as shock units but not as a general but in a role of an Officer so he was in the battle itself fighting alongside you.@@Ehrle6969
@@lumosity5163 there strategies and techniques are based on the type of warfare they did and the equipment they had at the time. Napoleonic warfare doesn’t work with swords and shields
Although I respect Tristans opinion, I have to go with Alexander. He also holds a title that the others don’t. He never lost a battle trough out his conquest, in 8 years Alexander had conquered 80% of the known world at the time. He’s empire stretched from Greece and the Balkans to Egypt and through all of the Middle East and then to India. All of this he conquered in 8 years without loosing a single battle, one more thing that people tend to forget is that Alexander was also heavily outnumbered facing 100 000 while his army only consisted of 37 000. After he was done in the east he planed to go west, unfortunately he lived to be 32, he never had the chance to go west where he would surely have won and changed history dramatically, he would in all likelihood have erased the idea of the Roman Empire. Alexander was not only a great general but also a great inventor, building on what the Spartans had already created he upgraded the phalanx and made it his own trademark. The phalanx was later upgraded once again by the romans and is a big reason why the romans were so successful in their conquers. Last but not least he has inspired more commanders, kings or generals than any other general in history, famously Julius Caesar cried in front of his statue at the same age that Alexander died criticising himself on the basis that Alexander had conquered everything at his age.
I completely agree 👍🏽
The premature death of Alexander was so significant because there would have been a very good chance he would have ventured west and conquered Rome, which was a small state, and life would be very different now.
Agreed
Alot of the credit of the Phalanx belongs to his father Phillip and I would argue Phillip would have maybe achieved what Alexander would have anyway, may have not had the same ambitions of world domination as him but that's part of Alexander's charm, he unlike many other possessed the true essence of the Homeric spirit, It seemed he longed to die in a glorious manner on the battlefield which he showcased time and time again, which i think his father may not have had if he had survived. He is definitely my favourite among military commanders but a certain bias leans in his favour definitely. There is and never will be a King like Alexander to lead from the front is why he is number. His siege warfare, improvisation tactics are also unparalleled but surely we can't assume they were all his ideas.
Alexander was also lucky due to his Father Phillip II building everything for him and his Mother telling him he is a demi-god while having Aristotle as his teacher.
Different answers for different people from different points of view
Yeah but we all know Alexander’s the Greatest deep down
Yea and alexander and his successors started the HELLENSTIC AGE.
Alexander had no rightful successor. If there is anything his successors did, they destroyed Alexander's gains and fought against each other (Wars of Diadochi)
Macedonian AGA. Helenic does not exist at Alexander time.
@@fantommorbius5175 Tell Alexander about not being Hellenic. Let’s see how long you ll survive
@@fantommorbius5175 Then why was he speaking Greek and had a Greek name? Why was his teacher Athenian? Makedonia was a Greek kingdom just like Sparta and Mykines. Wake the fxck up
@anuskumar3202 HE didn't assign a "heir" but the kingdoms that came from his generals are known as the successor kingdoms, in history the diadochi have been called successors, I'm not the first to say that. I'm simply stating the death of Alexander started an entire "age" throughout Europe and Asia.
The Hammer and Anvil exists even today. Napoleonic tactics are an evolution of Alexanders theory. The idea of Marching in small armies ( corps) comes from Alexanders far Eastern campaigns.
It is true prince maurice of orange adapted alexander the great’s tactics into musket warfare in the late 1500’s (volley fire). Napoleon was creative, but not the founder of marching warfare
The Haitians beat Napoleon and his general's
Yeah Napoleon is a student of warfare and this video is like a Paul Morphy, Bobby Fischer, Magnus Carlsen type comparison. Napoleon would beat them all but still.
@@RUTHLESSambition5damn really? i guess i never knew napoleon fought in haiti.. or that he had even ever been there….
@@RUTHLESSambition5No they didn’t, the Haitians had a great commander that was nicknamed “Black Napoleon” but the two never met, nor was there any battle fought in the European fashion, Black Napoleon later died in a French prison
Never interrupt your enemy when they are making a mistake - Napoleon Bonaparte
It should be noted that he crowned HIMSELF as Emperor, it is said that he snached the crown from the hands of the pope and crowned himself to show his defiance towards the pontiff, imagine conquering europe and just placing a crown on top of your own head, truly a badass.
He was also unintentionally charismatic, he wasnt actually good with people but hed unintentionally say humerous things, one example is:
Nepoleon was taking cover from canon fire alongside one of his soldiers, a canon flew right by their heads and knocked off the hat of the soldier, Nepoleom then said to the soldier "Its good you weren't a foot taller"
This is why his men followed him.
Ghangis khan was so charismatic with all the people beneath him his rule killed the most people in history. His body was hidden by people so loyal they killed theirself after they buried him. Then the people who saw them kill thierself killed theirself.
Imagine following some that don’t give af bout you just cuz he got jokes 😂
Charisma is indeed a spectacle to behold in real time. Not many people have it. And out of those few, even less master it.
Interestingly, all 3 are famous for being geniuses at Mobile warfar. Alexander won because he maneuvered his forces masterfully, concentrating them at differrnt points to inflict massive damage. Napoleon used more mobile detactchments for better logistics and maneuverability, and Ghengis Khan as defeated his enemies by maneuvering to create breakthroughs and overrun the enemy
Interestingly enough, Napoleon got his mobile warfare from Khalid ibn Walid. Just search it up.
Khalid’s tactics were so superior, it was the main reason why he could defeat the much more superior(in numbers and equipment) Romans and Persians in such a short time.
Genghis khan is a greater emperor than those two because he was able to stabilize and unite his empire in a way where even after his death, his empire was able to stay united for multiple generations. Can’t be said the same for Alexander and Napoleon, because their empires collapsed as fast as they rose.
Mongol Empire had very little influence on the world, they almost all got Assimilated, they all became Buddhists, Muslims and Christians
Nah napoleon without doubt France was a weak shit hole and terrible army when he took it over and literally the whole of Europe allied to fight France 6 times and lost every time
The West still exists and is incredibly powerful. What about the mongol empire exists today in any form of international relevancy?
@@paddypibblet846your argument is a presentism fallacy. It doesn’t matter which one is most visible in 2024. Genghis Khan and his descendants would reshape the globe significantly moreso than the other 2. The Mughals, and the Ottomans, the Golden Horse, the Timurids, and Kublai Khan. Nowhere was safe from Mongol attack and expansion from Japan to India, Europe and the Middle East.
@@paddypibblet846quite a lot actually. Turkey wouldn’t exist without mongol expansion. The Ottoman Empire was very significant. Also the Mughal empire was very significant and after they lost India it led to Britain filling the power vacuum and reshaping India completely. Mongol influence even affected south east Asia and places like Indonesia. The mongols under Genghis reshaped the entire world dude. I don’t know what you mean by “the west” but Napoleon and Alexander don’t compare to that. Alexander spread Hellenic Greeks to places as far as Bactria but was not as long lasting however to be fair Ptolemaic Egypt is a result of Alexander. It would go Genghis > Alexander > Napoleon
Alexander. He conquered Egypt, and when he died, the Egyptians insisted that he be buried there because he was their Pharaoh. As a conquering entity, he was revered as their supreme leader. If that isn't HONOR, I don't know what is.
Then take Cyrus the Great, the founder of the Achemanid Persian Empire. The man is seen as a prophet and saviour in all 3 Abhrahamic religions. In Old Testament Isiah 45:1-7 the God of Israel calls upon Cyrus to free the world from oppression and in Islam he is Zal Qurnayan the righteous man.
There's a reason his seen this way and that's because he:
• Created Human Rights making it a law that all people under his rule regardless of Race, Religion or Gender was to be treated as equals
• Created the world's first superpower with 44% of world population and half the world's GDP.
• Was such a benevolent and successful King his greatest enemies the Greeks saw him as the perfect ruler. Herodotus said he was a man as close to a living God as could be due to his grace and Xenophon wrote an entire book on how to be like Cyrus the perfect ruler.
• Freed the Jews from Babylonian Exile and Oppression, returned them to their home in Levant and rebuilt their temple for them. He repeated this act all over his empire
• When he declared that not even a mouse shall be harmed when be conquered Babylon and returned the Babylonian Gods to their temples, the people he had conquerored celebrated and threw him a festival. Imagine the people who you conquered throw a part for you.
And talking of Alexander the Great, the man who would fell his empire 200 years later. Alexander demanded to see Cyrus tomb and when he found it broken upon and pillaged Alexander openly wept seeing how the Great man had been disrespected.
Cyrus the Great
King of Justice 🔥
This is the same guy who destroyed Persepolis in drunken stupor😂.
@@JizyaLord a little more to it than that, but I mean, you do have a point.
For the record Napoleon had failed to conquer Egypt after the British destroyed Napoleon’s army.
@@elijahtory9932the British destroyed Napoleon's fleet at Aboukir Bay thus preventing reinforcements from France reaching Napoleon, imagine you're trapped 3310km from your country with no way of receiving help. It's hard to believe Napoleon managed to reach the Levant with a hostile population and terrain and the British constantly harassing him.
That cigarette is the greatest tool of human warfare.
Yea he's doing cigarette advertisement now. Can't get lower
That shirt and cigarette
@@vandelayindustries5814 bro what, he just smokes, he's not telling you to buy any brand in particular
@gxb1otty bro it's how the world works. You're like 16? There's been 70 years of cigarettes in movies working exactly like this. Now it's influences with cigarettes.
@@gxb1ottyHe's actually right. Read Allen Carr's easyway to stop smoking to understand the psychology of nicotine addiction
Another thing to add is that Napoleon wasn't just the best military leader of all time, but he was a great economist and handled the french situation so well as a ruler of the people while still being able to fight battles
Vive l’Empereur Napoléon 🇫🇷
@@GodIsEternalLove Vive La France🇫🇷
@@MartinTomrenSøvik Vive la France et son plus grand dirigeant. 🇫🇷
@@GodIsEternalLoveplease. He was a joke
@@GodIsEternalLovesure the same country who gives white flags often
The interviewers over there looking like Napoleon Dynamite
Alexander and Napoleon never had to form an army from scratch like Khan did.
Napoleon did.
Napoleon did, both in the sense of creating the doctrines the army applied but also in the more literal way and not just one time, in 1813 just after the failed invasion of Russia, he had to train a army on the march and was able to defeat a army of veterans from Russia and a modernized from Prussia.
Alexander beat the strongest empire at the time with a city's worth of soldiers what are you on they all were Great
@kostaspapas698 how is the whole army of ancient Greece a city worth army? Alexander inherited the best army in the world from his father. Khan had to built his army almost from scratch.
@@Okpia72 yes FINALY someone says it. And 9 times outta 10 Napoleon fought against incompetent nobles leading other nations armies.Khan was just built everything from ground up he literally found a nation of mongolia and built a Empire and he helped the environment.
Ghangis khan is greatest because of story and problem he faced
Napoleon has always been one of my favorite historical figures solely for the fact that he was one of if not the last great conquerors of the world to be on the front lines with his men
He wasnt on frontlines who told you that?
Yes he's my favourite emperor as well
@@nixon9346everyone he was legit one of the boys
My brother in Christ.
Ghenghis khan literally ENDED dynasties, empires, got together 100s of clans who hated each to make a single army, that dominated until he died of sickness.
His bloodline started Dynasties in China for years… even Chinese currency named Yuan
The only reason Napoleon is the best is because his adversaries were at the peak of their fighting ability and had extremely competent generals like Wellington or Archduke Charles.
Khalid Bin Waleed is the Greatest General
Yeah, people dont know his background. He was somewhat enslaved or captured when he was kid. Later on taking his only loss against his best friend in early stages of his leadership. As you said, merging those clans/families that want different things is very hard. I have written in another comment. Mongols mail system was extraordinary for its time, making it possible for them to communicate faster. Hell, he sent his two generals and only 10-15k expeditonary forces to europe to check what's there and they have captured near half of europe, and possibly would have captured all germany and maybe lowlands if khan wouldn't have died during the europe conquest, keep in mind he was in conquest in east during this time.
@@Am-Him-Universityconqueror of desert and camel😂😂😂
Germany in ww2 was the first country to invent an explosive attack plane that had no pilot.
Tristan smoking a cigarette.. Odd XD
He literally smokes cigarettes all the time 💀
A bundle of sticks smokin a cig, how Apropos
He’s Romanian lol😂
@@eyvithorgeirsson6028is he not from England and US?
@@eyvithorgeirsson6028he's English/American who lives in romania
Meanwhile Queen Victoria takes a sip of tea
He was talking about name of warfare. Not era
(Why do I hear rule Britannia)
That’s an era not a series of wars
haemophilia era 😂😂😂😂
@@johnnyboy5708napoleonic is a era too
@@ThemoonsFullofgoons-qn9xl its a series of wars waged against napoleon
Never thought I would agree with the brother of a human trafficker😭💀🙏
Cap
Can u proof that he is one hating on him for saying the truth u bot😂😂😂
Agree? He makes no sense. The reason it was called napoleonic wars was because he went to war against everybody. He the one who started it
Don’t worry he’s a trafficker as well
@@a_little_flame589u are a bot u can't proof someone is a trafficker without proof who are the victim and wat are their name which country did they come from pathetic 🤣🤣🤣
Nahhh bent that thang over is wiiiild works YSL Mike 😂😂😂😂
entire Europe had to team up to beat him.
And the entire world had to team up to beat germany
@@steffen4970 that might be true the difference is Germany had allies for most of their fight and a leader who puppets a country not willing to accept defeat and died without honor while Napoleon fights and makes the plan like a general
@@kingamante8419France had alot of allies under every single one of the puppets and Napoleon puppeted many countries
@@kingamante8419germany had very few capable allies.... the army they created is insane for the short period and dont forger we use all their inventions😂
Na he couldn’t beat Russia only
Napoleon is referred to being amongst the best military leaders and strategist in military history of any age.
He didn’t look so great vs the Africans of the Haitian revolution. Then again neither did the empires of the Spanish or the British.
He lost twice alexander never lost🤷🏻♂️
@@karaghanascythianslayer3822 napoleon never fought in the haitian revolution... he couldn't invade england without a Fleet and he won in Spain, just his marshals couldn't keep it while he was busy in eastern europe ^^
@@polyperchon4511 So he just gave Haiti up without a fight? What an idiot & coward because that loss caused the loss of his whole entire empire!
@@polyperchon4511 so he just let his whole entire empire collapse without even fighting & y’all see him as a tough guy? 🤣😂🤣 To y’all in Europe he is the toughest but to Africans & African Americans he was a useless joke!
“Genghis Khan still existed in this era”. Bro, Alexander the Great lived around 330 BC and Genghis Khan around 1200 AD. That’s not the same era 😂 it’s literally 1500 years apart. Alexander was unstoppable in his era and the same goes for Genghis Kan. They both revolutionised warfare in ways unknown to the world at the time and that’s why they were so successful. 💀
I think he meant the same era as in still fighting with swords, bows, spear, armor, and shields.
He never said they are in the same era. The cutter edited it in a confusing way
@@luckyxiong5766 it still is not comparable, the mongols utilised armor, horse archers and artillery (to name a few things) that was not even thought of in the bronze age.
I was just about to say that 😂😂😂 Tristan is stupid as fuck and dosen't know history. Plus Alexander's troops relied mostly on their sarrisa their 12 fool long spear and their shields.
@@peterherrman5092Alexander reign wasn't in the bronze age my dude 😀 he was already in the steel age. Even the iron age ended i. 500 Bc and Alexander lived in the 300's Bc and tone BC was dated backwards.
Not only was napoleon a great emperor
He was also a great commander, grew up in humble roots, wrote novels, great politician
Napoleon was the man he was always the underdog and got the job done
Don't forget Mohammed Al Fatih the conqueror of constantinople
Genghis Khan is still the greatest - some of his tactics he introduced may not have a name but were unique to the mongols - 1 example was catapulting the dead bodies that they first set on fire and then flung into wherever they were trying to invade
“All the great Christian knights who kicked the moors out of Spain”
Why quote that part?
"The great Salahuddin who kicked the Crusades out of Jerusalem"
The green March
Hassan the 2nd 1975
@@zhyar313 "The great Netanyahu who kicked out the Arabs."
@@willt2036 Setanyahu isn't kicked out anybody, he is just another puppet in the game
holding cigarette like a girl in pink suite is really sigma
Khan was dirt poor as a child, and clawed his way up to the top! This guy has no f@cking clue how much of a beast Khan was 😂😂
They only learning history from youtube. Khan got enslaved during his childhood, no one seems to know this, suprising. I love Alexander, but his dad was emperor
Was a slave at one point.
The great Cyrus the man that ruled the strongest empire in the human history was from royal linage but was raised a farmers son. Because of some sort prophecy from the emperor of the time he was meant to die. But the one who was tasked with killing him took pity and left him aat the door or something of a farmer family that couldn't have children because of some sort of illness from one of the two
Ironically Napoleon was as well coming from a poor Corsican family and making his way up to the top of a country where typically positions are given out men of upstanding last names rather than skill-full leaders
@@dagerb9508Not only was he relatively poor by his standards, he was also on debt. After his father passed away from the same fate that would later kill Napoleon he left his family in a lot of debt.
Also a lot of us throughout the entire world are related to Khan
Mostly in China😂😂😂😂
No lol only Asia & eastern Europe
Y'all just forget that half the world is in Asia?
@@guerillagrowersuk3765bs about East Europe
@@B.G_GlyphsNot half, 60% of humanity are in Asia in
Gonzalo de Cordoba heralded the Pike and Shot era which lasted over one hundred years
Genghis khan the guy who Speedrun almost whole Asia
Napoleon got his ass kicked out of Haiti 🇭🇹
Caused a whole ass revolution in Haiti...tf u talking bout...last time i heard of haiti was to pray for it
No one of his generals did
Haiti is a shit place too
And haiti is still a shithole
Napoleon’s wasn’t at Haiti during the revolution if he was trust me it wouldn’t have been as successful
Alexander is by far the greatest ever
Cyrus and khalid joined the chat
I completely disagree. Mongol warriors were fierce that is true but genghis Khan was not khan from the beginning. He was stolen everything he supposed to own by someone from hes own tribe and even enslaved by chinese when he was young. He didnt learn to write he didnt learn any warfare tactics or any method to govern people. After he escaped from slavery he gathered people and become chieftain of few people. You could say its almost like modern day gang because thats just how few man he had then he defeated every single mongol tribes. That achievement is almost like one gang in new York defeated usa army head on and took control of the country. After he united all mongols he took revenge on chinese countries(at that era there were more than 3 chinese counrry). After that he finally got piece and trying to govern hes country then some stupid mayor form khwarazmian empire killed 500 or more merchants form mongol and took the loot. Genghis Khan send messanger and messanger killed as well. So war to take revenge happened again and shit happened all of a sudden mongol empire happened.
I appreciate the way the way able to explain his train of thought what he expresses not something I had considered before
The greatest Emperor of all time was Marcus Aurelius...
Nah
Nah man not even top 5 Roman emperors.
Why does no one mention the great Cyrus i wonder
@@Arad-u1q yeah he really has a claim and was a great person, even by today's standards
Odd way to spell Umar
Napoleonic wars werent a name for warfare, just for the wars europe waged against him
Da....isn't hat refelect "the one to all".
While this is true for" Napoleonic wars," because of how much of an impact Napoleon had. Napoleonic Warfare/tactics is the name of the tactics and style of Warfare used at time and were named after him. Especially after he was finally defeated. The countries of Europe learned from years of battling with him and studying his armies after. They took and built upon Napoleon's tactics/ideas for many things like artillery battery's, dividing and conquering tactics with the new age firepower ect, and applied these concepts into their own armies. Greatly impacting the future of Warfare.
that's more terrifying, they don't even think it's about France vs europe but one man vs all
@@argara”I am the revolution”
Napoleonic warfare was from 1796-1880s, ended at the point of automatic weapons and the fall in the favorability of gunpowder
Cyrus the great is never talked about :/
Never!
Yeah particularly because he didn't had to fend off a numerically and technologically advaced coalitions 6 times like Napoleon
@@anuskumar3202yet he had to fend off the median empire and multiple Mesopotamian states while his kingdom was a vassal in southern Persia
Finally!
@@Tripoloski631AND ruled THE largest empire ever
Spoiler alert the barren Russian land was untouched
This dude is so smart to have this good of an answer to completely random question is crazy
Napolean also gave the modern world its basis for law, i rarely see ppl mention it, he was skilled both in the sword and pen, great intellectual for sure.
True. Although Justinian actually gave it to us. It was his corpus juris civilus.
Yeah lost at Waterloo badly,lost in Russia too. The goat is khalid bin walid
Nah.
I genuinely don’t believe he’s ever read a history book past high school
You don’t have to believe anything Edward
Aww poor edward
Man got the ashes of Moscow tho😂😂😂😂😂
🫸🏼 Brother, Alexander the Great is unmatched.
Khan Conquered more land
@@KnowThyself47he did actually but he never controlled the regions he conquered like Alexander did. Khan raped pillaged and moved to the next
Not to mention Alenxader started from a massively good position. Having inherited a war machine and having mentors like Aristotle.
Alexander inherited the best army in the world.😬
Temujin was not even the greatest general in his own army ☠️
Napoleon is the greatest military genius of all time, while creating the most popular legal system in the world today 😳
Rightly guided caliphs are levels ahead of him in my opinion
Did you hear about khalid tho
I heard he beat 2 empires, but i also heard they were weakened after decades of endless wars so he was just there at the right place and time, tho napoleon fought all european superpowers for almost 2 decades, that’s not just 2 superpowers, that’s an entire continent he fought, and for the record, france was wrecked by revolutions and instability yet napoleon still won 6 times, yeah not even close
He wasn’t an emperor
He was not better then Napoleon
@@johnnyboy5708he was the one that crippled them both Persians and romans were extinct and revived many times but never were the same after him and im a iranian
@@Arad-u1q the arab conquest began in 633, the last war the byzantine and persians had was in 602-628, do the math and see if they have time to recover, for info both sides loss 50,000-70,000 in that war and weakened their economy, meaning they’re crippled before the arab conquest began
It’s Ganghis Khan for sure. Every person in these comments has his blood in them today and he ruled the strongest army to ever exist. He’s still ruling the world today.
Strongest army ever is the US army
@@autitvpromovie8927 cope
Absolutely not, only some people in asia have his blood, how tf would everyone in the world have genghis blood? How old are you?
@@s66s46it’s not every person and it’s not some. .5% of the worlds population got his blood that’s a whole empire of people my guy that’s literally millions
Also largest contiguous empire in history by landmass
Alexander the Gae😂😂
The OG Diddy😂
This is actually funny 😅 you can't even compare Alexander to any other
You’re right, he was gay
Was extremly good at warfare,trash at ruling
@cheeminthao7967 Stop watching Netflix if you don't have the ability to filter what is bullshit and what's not! Netflix is one of the biggest lgbtq bullshit propaganda producer! And even if he was gay that don't changes the fact that he conquered almost forth of the earth! He imparted knowledge to those who he conquered and to this day they are finding objects in excavations that proves this! It's blasphemy to even compare him with anybody else!
@@cheeminthao7967a myth by woke leftists
Alexander got mauled by Indian chieftain Porus
For those who keep mentioning khalid, please its not even close, he beat two empires, that’s cool and all but remember that those two were weakened by their recent war, napoleon on the other hand led an unstable empire to victory from the very start of the war against all the superpowers of the continent and won 6 wars, yes he lose in the end but their skills are way far from each other, in mathematical ranking, khalid was only around 3rd or 4th but napoleon break the math at 1st place
Napoleon failed in all of his goals, u can’t be serious…
Modern day france is still the same as before napoleon.
Same with Alexander, Greece is still the same as before he took over.
Same with Genghis and Mongolia.
Khalid ibn Al-Walid is the sole reason why sunni islam (fastest growing religion) is the world largest religion on earth, he’s the reason why arabic is the third most spoken language on earth, he’s the reason that the arab and Islamic world expanded from France to china.
His feat of crippling and ending the two powers of his time, is something that no one did, before and after him…
The only match i can find that gets close to khalid is Alexander, another undefeated general (however, i am very skeptical of his Indian campaign).
But achievement and influence wise, he’s not even close.
Alexander’s language, script, culture, religion are long gone, and only modern day greece could “slightly” represent him.
@@arabos4239 so napoleonic code and military reforms made by napoleon was a joke to u? Almost every western countries and maybe even in every part of the world used the napoleonic code in their law, napoleon is in top 3 most influential figure in the world, 1st is jesus, 2nd prophet of islam, then 3rd is napoleon, u can’t be serious to say that bcuz he failed to his goal it means he didn’t contribute to the world, his shadows loomed over the european revolutions that came after him, many countries that were formed after him based their constitutions he made, also don’t be ridiculous that khalid is what made the arab empire alone, after the fall of rashidun caliphate, it was the umayads who expanded the arab empire from india to spain, the arab empire didn’t reach china, they only halted the tang dynasty’s westward expansion, it wasn’t khalid who made the islam into SECOND largest religion, it was the believers who kept making babies despite poverty, also islam’s driving force as to why they’re the fastest growing religion is bcuz of population growth, christianity’s main driving force is conversion, islam isn’t adding new believers they’re just multiplying themselves, the fastest growing religion in africa is christianity despite arabs being more close to them, so stop pushing ur own narratives and start checking facts bruh, even mathematics agreed napoleon is the best military commander
@@arabos4239 also about the two WEAKENED empires that he “ended” we’re already at the brink of collapse, if u research abt the wars between sassanian and byzantine empire, you’ll see that the wars they fought just before the arab conquest made the two empires weaker than they ever were, they’re already crippled before he came, he is just the last straw that breaks the camel’s back
@@johnnyboy5708 oh again with this nonsensical argument…
That happened years before his conquests, and the khalifate had two Civil wars among there territories that also delayed there conquests.
Both these empires literally united in a battle against that dude, outnumbered him, and they still lost.
That’s like the United States and the Soviet union colliding against Saudi Arabia after the cold war and loosing miserably to them…
The arab Islamic conquests are miraculous to this day thanks to Khalid ibn al-Walid.
And his influence lasted and dominates the world stage till this day.
Can’t say the same for Alexander, Genghis Khan and Napoleon.
It’s a joke to compare napoleon to Alexander and Genghis Khan, let alone compare him to the sword of god!
@@johnnyboy5708 napoleon lost twice to his European rivals, once to the Ottoman Empire, he even lost to Haiti for crying out-loud…
And you’re putting him above Khalid, Alexander and Genghis Khan?
Are you french by any chance?
There was someone which Napoleon was afraid of that one was Đorđe Petrović Karađorđe the leader of Serbs
Lies
Aj ne seri majke ti
Everyone knows Tristan is just Andrew in a wig. Classic Clark Kent with glasses move.
Khan lowered the global temperature, I think I’ll take him
1. Napoleon - Imo the greatest general of all time due to the fierce opposition he faced time & time again.
2. Alexander - Never lost a battle. Conquered the known world in his time but died young.
3. Genghis Khan - Great general but much of the Mongol’s vast success was due to his generals & sons also.
I'd say Khalid bin Waleed is an even better general though. Never lost a battle, was able to beat both the Roman and Persian empires at the same time with both numbers and logistics disadvantages and worse at all times.
@@sendbob9341 thing is I’d put him more in the warrior category; because he was a general but he wasn’t the Supreme commander of the army.
@@JiggaMan1297 he was in charge of both strategy and logistics and commanded the entire army. Saying he was only a warrior is an understatement.
@@sendbob9341 I’m not trying to take anything away from him as a commander, but he is to Muhammad who Subutai is to Genghis Khan. During Subutai’s campaigns in Asia and Europe he conquered more territory than any other commander in history. He is arguably the greatest general of all time, but ultimately the success of his campaign’s are attributed to Genghis Khan, the only difference is Khalid is more popular. For that reason I wouldn’t put them in the same category as Alexander or Napoleon, who only fought in their own name and often led from the front while doing it.
@@JiggaMan1297 I didn't put him in the same category as those conquerors. You did by calling then generals. He is not an emperor, but a general. In any case it's quite a pedantic difference so ino worries either way.
Well the Chinese dude was one of the most sadistic....ya gotta give him ThAT
Dude forgot the crusaders
Nah. Gengis Khan. Almost every Mongol has a percentage of his dna. And a big ass statue!!!
😂😂😂 Dumb you are dumb. How u say everyone has his DNA. We don't even know where he was buried.
Never forget Khalid ibn walid
Bruv, I was looking for this comment. He was the best general of all time. With his full trust in Allah and his undefeated strategies, he made two great empires, the Persian and the Roman, fall to their knees.
If the world doesn't know, he isn't great enough
@@stephenkikon1475he wasn’t an emperor
And he is known, just search any “greatest generals of all time” and u’ll see him mentioned everywhere.
He was the only undefeated general, who crippled and ended the two major powers of his time (a feat no one did, before and after him).
In my opinion, i put him above Alexander and Napoleon, not because he was an undefeated general, but because of his long lasting achievements.
He is the reason that the arab and islamic world expanded from france to china.
Neither Alexander nor Napoleon had this everlasting influence.
@@gokuraye😅😂😂
@@arabos4239 An empire that is already falling at the time 😂😂
Gengis killed over 10% of the world’s population at the time. In today’s world, (just like accounting for inflation) that number would be 800million. Imagine in today’s day and age, a back water savage country out of nowhere just starts conqueroring everything. One man, genghis khan himself and through his leadership created the largest contiguous empire. Rome was built on millennia and ages of culture and work of the Italian states, Mongol empire was created in one life time, and started to fracture when its progenitor died of illness. The khan also favored daughters over sons since he found an ingenious bloodless way to obtain power within his own ranks. Gengis khan is also the most successful in life in terms of species as a whole because he still and will always have the most descendants in the world. The soldiers he steeled and gave pride to and treated fairly also formed a scouting party to see what was in the west. They found the rus principalities and the scouting party of the mongols managed to subjugate the rus for decades. A bunch of lightly armored short men riding horses, shooting arrows at fully armored European knights, and they got demolished. The trust, lust, reverence of the soldiers to Gengis was unfathomable. The mongols purposely had some of their front lines killed to draw the enemy out of their positions. Most of the killed were volunteers. Who else inspired their men so much they would volunteer to die to become a stepping stone for someone else’s ambitions?
Alexander’s ambitions were too high
Napoleon was too proud and stubborn
Gengis khan made no mistakes
Worse than the devil
@@Thechesslad1 Better than Jesus.
Genghis khan is always in our hearts.
Yep, people forget literally largest contiguous empire, goated
"My enemies are many, my equals are none" - TOTAL WAR NAPOLEON
Alexander The Great conquered using mostly fear. "Join us, or we destroy you, and join us anyways."
After defeating an army of 200 war elephants, he took the remaining war elephants that survived and included them in his army temporarily. Alexander did not like using war elephants, but he used them as a fear tactic. He liked how they made his army more intimidating. Then he ate them. 😂
napoleon's untrained men is what held him back in the last battles
He lost his best men in spain and russia
His wife cheated on him too so he holds that over the others 😂😂
Which wife from the 800 he had?
Wait! I never expected this guy to have so much knowledge of history. I'm impressed.
His lack of historic knowledge hurts my brain.....
I absolutely agree with you
Surreeee
He is right
@@Sans_Sucre_ajoutéNo he's not lol.
Anyone with actual historical knowledge wouldnt claim this and especially not on the basis that someone has a 'warfare' tactic named after him.
He’s right, but for the wrong reasons
What they won’t tell you is a small island called Haiti led by Toussaint Louvrrture and Jean-Jacques Dessalines defeated the mighty French army and Napoleon!!
Also this point is so mood when you realize its only called napoleonic warfare in english and no other language
Saying someone defeated Napoleon just by defeating a contingent of the French army is inaccurate. Toussaint still is one of the greatest generals
They didn’t defeat Napoleon. They defeated a part of the colonial French army stationed in Haiti - thanks to the Poles.
They won’t tell you ?
That’s because it didn’t happen.
Napoleon wasn't in Haiti.
So a kickboxer with brain damage will give us a history lesson. He didnt even understood the question. Only a kick boxer can think of judging an emperor only on the basis of his military strategy. Being an emperor is not just about waging wars. There is a lot that makes an emperor great and Alexandre is called the great for a reason. His vision, his policies, the way he ruled. Nobody could repeat what he did. Napolean was a great Military General but his capability as a ruler raised a lot of questions.
This comment 🙌🏿
Still tho genghis khan was no civil humanitarian leader. Alexander the Great was a good leader. Napoleon genuinely was revered and loved in France. So much so that civilians and soldiers alike joined him when he returned from exile. I get what you’re saying but Napoleon is still the right answer.
Alexander thrived as a ruler because of his capitalizing of the infrastructure laid out by Cyrus the Great.
Napoleon even during his time was a way better leader than those in Austria, Prussia, Spain and Russia.
He was a proponent of the french revolution and it's ideals, the Napoleonic code?
A working man in france during his time had way more freedom than a Russian serf.
Napoleon definitely wasn't the best emperor in history though.
Napoleon created the most popular legal code of the world ...
Tristan is surely educational on napoleonic warfare.
I am laughing my ass off reading the comments here talking about Alexander whose empire stretched just from Greece to northwest India. 😂😂
The probably didn't know the Mongol empire under Hulagu and Kublai was stretched from the whole Korea and China to major part of current Russia in the north, to the whole central Asia and the whole middle east except the current day Saudi, and to the major eastern Europe in their west. They conquered over 2/3 of the whole world during their time. To visualise how strong they were, on their way to crash Baghdad, the Mongols destroyed five civilizations including the Fatimid, Khawarizm and the Hashashins (whom even Salahaddin couldn't defeat them). And that was just like their "side quests" on their way to Baghdad. Alexander didn't got any shit on the Mongols. Only the westerners hyped up Alexander af.
Yea, but khan had 4-10 million more soldiers than alexander😂
@@georgioskalanidis9091 Nah bro. I think you read that wrong somewhere. When Mongkhe Khan ordered Kublai to invade China and Hulagu to Baghdad and then eventually to central Asia and eastern Europe they divided their armies some marched with Hulagu, some with Kublai and the remaining stayed in Mongol. Hulagu marched down with just over 200k armies, so did with Kublai. They definitely didn't have 10 million armies up there in the mountains of Mongol in the 13th century.
Two different time lines. What you refer as greece to india was all of the known world, and they tought if they kept going they might fall from earth. Both emperors achieved tremendous success. Granted, chengiz came from much more diffuser background, but that doesn't make Alexander lesser. He created numerous of cities and did all of this before he was 33.
Persian empire under cyrus was still bigger. Yeah let that sink in
@@Arad-u1q You're joking bro.? The Achaemenid empire of Cyrus covered about 5.5million km. The Mongol empire in its peak stretched out to 24 million km. About four or five times larger than Cyrus'. It was not even close. Mongol was the largest empire the history has ever witnessed. That's a fact.
Imagine all European countries declaring war on a single person that who napolean was.
Meanwhile Khaled bin waleed fought a battle with just 15000 soldiers against the Persian army of 150000 and won. He only lost 200 soldiers in that battle and wiped out 1/3rd (50000 soldiers) of the Persian army. Its called the battle of Firaz. Then he did it again at the battle of Yarmouk where he fought the combined roman and persian forces of 140000 and wiping out half of their soldiers with 40000 soldiers at his back. He fought 50 battle and never lost one. Persian empire at that point was 1100 years old and roman empire was 900 years old and within 6 years khaled bin waleed made these two empires vanish. Roman Empire eventually did survive but never truly recovered. He is arguably the best military commander of all time.
Do you think the same would have happened with cyrus as the Persian empire? Or with Alexander as thr roman emperor is the main question
lol, impossible!
Stop with this nonsense!
Any person who is even remotely familiar with Ancient Warfare knows that your story makes no sense whatsoever.
@@Arad-u1q your question literally makes no sense…
@@coachduke9323 I’ve given you the names of those battles, go look it up yourself.
@@coachduke9323 go look it up yourself boy.
Napoleon walked thru the city by himself and the people who actually held power started running away 😂😂😂
They glorify napoleon and yet censorship the mustache guy name
Causevthe Jews and Communist demand it to be.
Yeah cause Napoleon wasn't that bad of a guy compared to the other leaders of his time. ,🇦🇹🎨 was an absolute monster, even by the standards of his time.
@@janwillemdewaard354And yet, he made some of the worst decisions in history and lost the war.
@@LeMagicienXHe won multiple coalition wars, after a while your bound to lose when all of the great powers keep taking shots at you.
The truth is Napoleon's rule was never going to last, they were always going to reform and fight back everytime.
But at least Napoleon didnt gas people because they were jewish.
@@LeMagicienXOk? His stillbetter than that fuhrer weirdo
خالد بن الوليد
Khaleed vs 2 empires, napoleon vs european superpowers, see the difference?😅😅😅😅
He conquered deserts, Napoleon conquered Europe.. big difference…
خالد بن الوليد غزه الروم و الفرس و نشره الإسلام في العالم و هو سيف الله المسلول لم يخسر معركة واحدة @@johnnyboy5708
@@johnnyboy5708search the map of Persians and then talk bitch. Its bigger then Russia and its habitable
@@redsusas00deserts? Was that why both the Sassanids and the Romans teamed up against him at Firaz 🤣?
Khalid bin Al-Waleed
He fought 2 weakened empires, napoleon fought an entire continent and won 6 times
@@johnnyboy5708 read more about him
Khalid was not an emperor
@@jmmp7290 I know
@@amjad6054 then obviously he won’t be mentioned in a video about “the greatest emperor”
Dont forget that bro got exiled multiple times and came back to continue the war 💀
This man clearly has poor knowledge of history if Napoleon is the greatest emperor. Man, he can't even compare with Alexander or Genghis, both of them left a big legacy over the centuries, Alexander even praised as God in the Hellenistic period of Egypt for 300 years. What did Napoleon left? That's like saying a millioner is richer than trillioner. Only big history enthusiasts will know about Napoleon in 300 years, but we know about Alexander even after 2 centuries.
You're smoking crack if you don't think Napoleon is gonna be a recognizable historical future akin Alexander and ghengis the man literally revolutionized modern warfare
@@Nugundamsisntforshow
What "modern warfare"? How's that "modern warfare" going to be called in 2300. AD? -"Not so modern warfare anymore"?
@@InTheBlueCorner you're arguing semantics now. It's easy to prove that modern military doctrine borrows and expands upon principals either invented or popularized by Napoleon will it still be recognizable who knows but that doesn't discount that Napoleon has a clearly visible historical effect on society that will be remembered for centuries to come
@@Nugundamsisntforshow
There is no semantics here. Napoleon didn't left any greater legacy, not more than just a short historical effect during his livelihood and 150 years after his death. By the greater legacy I mean the legacy that Alexander had left. We can argue that Alexander revolutionised everything, not just an "ancient warfare". Napoleon is a big historical figure for sure, but there is no comparison to the Alexander The Great or Genghis
@@Nugundamsisntforshowif we were to make tiers, Alexander and chengiz would be top while napoleon one notch below
Wow he's smoking a cigarette now that speaks volumes
If i am not mistaken, Alexander created hammer and andvil tactics.
What napolean did was also create modern conscription where every frenchmen was a soldier.
Alexander is named the great for a reason
You also can’t deny Napoleon’s genius in using turn of the century Artillery, his ideas and tactics were revolutionary and critical to his success
I was gonna dislike for nay answer but Napoleon. Napoleon ascent was absolutely wild
I never thought i would see Tristan tate smoke a cigarette
Napoleon was a fucking savage. He used to pause the battle mid war and host parades to show how bad he was whooping their asses
The way he talks with his hands 🙌 is unreal
Putty in his hands if he said the earths flat the way he uses his hands you would believe him ahahahah
This man is a historian, political scientist, nasa scientist, military analysist, he knows everything that's why everyone ask him questions 😂😂😂
To show how much of a goat Napoleon was, during the war of the Seventh Coalition, war wasn’t declared on France, but on Napoleon himself
Dude khan started off doing tribal warfare with fractured mongol tribes then created an empire and his army learned how to properly siege a castle town when they didn't even know how to deal with it originally. He literally creates that empire out of the mud.
That was an actual interesting and knowledgeable answer... Cool!