English Deutsch Français Italiano Español Português 繁體中文 Bahasa Indonesia Tiếng Việt ภาษาไทย
All categories

Genghis Khan, Saladin, Churchill, Alexander the great, Julius Caeser, Napolean, Patton, Saddam Husein, Nelson, Cyrus the great, Attila the Hun, Oliver Cromwell, Stalin, Eisenhower, Hitler, George Washington.

sorry if I haven't listed other people

2007-08-01 04:49:49 · 24 answers · asked by Anonymous in Politics & Government Military

I'd say Genghis Khan.

2007-08-01 05:31:06 · update #1

24 answers

Some Good Candidates But You Forgot
Robert E Lee
Field Marshal Erwin Rommel
King Leonidas Of Sparta
Stonewall Jackson
Xerxes
Teddy Roosevelt
Black Jack Pershing
By the Way Hitler couldn't lead a Dog to take a sh-it successfully if it wasn't for that Moron Germany would have won WW2.You want a true German General ROMMEL.
Hussein Did real good too almost as well as Mussolini but not quite
What a disgrace to put those 2 in your list.

2007-08-01 07:11:39 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 1 0

Genghis Khan
Attila the Hun
George Washington

2007-08-01 04:57:16 · answer #2 · answered by strike_eagle29 6 · 0 0

Alexander the Great or Attila the Hun.
They both often defeated much larger armies by using tact and strategy, and they both where on the front motivating their men.
Hannibal is also at the top of my list
Caesar had the help of some incredible war machines that most of his opponents didn't have.
Washington and many others on your list, while great leaders, had the assistance of powerful allies.
Napoleon was too flighty, he rushed his troops into Russia without even preparing for the winter
What's up with Saddam?

2007-08-01 04:53:39 · answer #3 · answered by heavysarcasm 4 · 1 0

General George S. Patton

2007-08-01 05:34:33 · answer #4 · answered by JASiege 4 · 0 0

1 Alexander the great
2. George Patton

2007-08-01 04:52:59 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 5 0

Geronimo, Took an Army of 5,500. American troops And the Mexican army to fight him and 10 warriors, Apaches were said to be the best light Calvary in the world.They never were more the 500-600 warrior that fought the America army to a stale mate for decades.

2007-08-01 04:58:55 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Napolean is the only person to ever come close to taking all of europe. hitler had a great deal, but did not have the countries untied like napolean did.

2007-08-01 04:58:01 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0 0

Winston Churchill

2007-08-01 04:54:04 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 0 1

Red Cloud He was a great Native American Chief and the only nation that the US Government ever sued for peace with. That's right... we surrendered and it is required reading at West Point.

2007-08-01 04:53:43 · answer #9 · answered by BeArPaW_4709 4 · 1 0

Everybody's opinion on FPS's are different, everybodys. Like for instance i Loved CoD4 and WaW too i still play 4 and lately i have been trying to spread the word that its the best one and trying to get poeple to play it more via social networks and YouTube, plus i agree 100% on MW2 being "ok" but the first black ops was the worst cod to be released, it had only 5 guns that everybody used that were OP as sh** and the hit boxes were all screwy. and on top of that MW3 played alot like cod4 but with mw2 features updated so i dont know how you, a cod 4 lover like me hated it, plus its popularity was ridiculously substantial, but out of Halo BF and CoD, CoD is now the lowest on the list to me, Halo being second and BF being #1. Black ops 2 sucks, i agree with you, Halo 4 was amazing, plus it takes more skill to play than BF and CoD, BF takes a decent amount of skill with the bullet ballistics and stuff especially, but cod takes Zero skill, zero. all you have to do in it, is aim & shoot or Sray n Pray, but thats what makes Call of Duty, Call of Duty. if CoD had bullet ballistics and stuff it would suck, the only way they can save cod is if they make another old era game, like Vietnam or even WW1, cause that future stuff just wont cut it, you and i both know that. Sledgehammer already kinda announced MW4, wich is probably just going to be MW3 sugar coated with sprinkles. i do know that BF4 is gonna change the game, there taking a new approach with never before seen stuff, idk What else Halo has to offer. But if Call of Duty ever plans on making a comeback, the gotta change the game with Some Vietnam stuff, and Black Ops wasnt a Vietnam game, it had 2 missions that took place in Vietnam out of like the 14 total. and had a few Nam maps i guess, like 3 or 4. But im Talking like an all-out Vietnam thing, with only Nam era weapons and killstreaks. And it CANNOT be made by Treyarch, they suck. even though its not IW nomore, its still better than Treyarch... But this is only my opinoin. thats all you can ask for to a question like that.

2016-05-19 23:37:12 · answer #10 · answered by emily 3 · 0 0

fedest.com, questions and answers