Napolean would rank up there in the past 1,000 years but in history I wouldnt put him in the top 25.


Napolean was dumb...he blockade on Britain did nothing and his invasion on Spain also did nothing , which he had to retreat back to France

Napolean was great when he defeated basically the entire european continent when they banded against him. Britain, Prussia, Russia, Austria all lost to Napolean

but napolean was dumb when he and like 600,000 men marched into Moscow... the conquered it without force, i think russian troops basically let him into moscow untouched.... but he came back and 300,000 were killed because of the winter blizzards..

then came the Battle of the Nations where Napolean met his fate.

Well, if we want to talk about true military genius, I'm going to have to go back past 1000 years.
HANNIBAL would be the number one warrior/general in history. His concepts and tactics of warfare were so far reaching that they are still being taught at military academies around the world.

Now we're talking... probably the greatest BLACK warrior ever, wrecked up shop in Rome and almost took the Roman Empire down at its height.

I agree with you about his military genius... him crossing the alps and the route he took from spain to italy was genius... totally caught the Romans off gaurd.

as a race setup....

My vote goes to William Wallace

The tactics he employed at the battle of Striling Bridge and that other battle (forget the name of it) were superb, although perhaps not ingenious. If it were over the last 2000 years Alex the Gr8 would get my vote

hah illimatic you're incorrect. Hannibal was white, as were most all carthagenians, whom were simply the eastern end of the phonecian empire (more whites) that seceeded from the phonecians and formed their own government.

Sorry, the only Black warrior truly ethnically in his own, would be Shaka Zulu, which actually he is a damn good choice, but he was a bit insane.

Sincerely,
no signature

[Edited on 22-1-2003 by FreeMason]

Actually I'll post this a second post, first off, Hannibal is the ONLY man in HISTORY to ever and I say EVER!!!! Completely surround an enemy army, COMPLETELY.

As he did with 80000 romans whom wouldn't give up and he completely slaughtered them.

It wouldn't be for another 2300 years before anyone would get that close to surrounding an entire army completely, do you know who that was? Bet you don't....Shwarztkopf, came very close to surrounding an entire Iraqi army but failed to close the gap.

As for Napoleon, most of the stuff you said about him was wrong Illimatic, just like about hannibal.

And your thinking that Alexander the Great, whom was great, he conquered lands all the way to India, he pushed farther than any greek knew how large the world was, and because of it most of his greek army left, and he was forced to raise a foriegn army to complete his conquest.

Also, the Library of Alexandria was destroyed by Christians some 500 years after the death of Alexander the Great. When it was destroyed it still had tons of information, that was when the dark ages began.

Sincerely,
no signature

trust me, Hannibal Barca of Carthage was a black man, I'd know... all the white portraits of him are wrong.
I'm at school right now taking my finals but when I get home I'll post the info.

And tell me what I said wrong about Napolean, please let me know.

This whole thread is "flamebait".... From the get-go, it seems to have been stated to point out outstanding black warriors in history, only to belittle the accomplishments of warriors of different heritage... All races have had their warrior heroes.

Yes, if you look back through Ilmatic67's threads most of them have a black racial bias. It seems he may feel a bit inferior or something.

First, there is no doubt that Hannibal was a great tactician. That said, proving that someone who lived in BC times was either black, white, whatever, is like trying to prove whether or not Jesus was white or black.

And really, it's besides the point. We were touting good warriors, not good racial warriors. It's just that some of the slants seemed to go in the direction of calling the (generally believed to be) white warriors thugs, and the others heroes...

"flame" = ranting and raving in a post
"flamebait" = a post deliberately designed to incite flames.

On the surface this appeared to be the aim...that's all I meant. If I am mistaken, then so be it...I can admit that.

Relating to the info about Hannibal though, just because it says "African armies" does not mean black armies. That's like assuming Britain's "Indian armies" were Indians, and not British troops in India, thus Indian armies....

Do generals count as great warriors? If they do Xenophon the greek gets my vote. His exploits can be read in The Persian Expedition which is still a wonderful military text. Out numbered thousands of miles from home this guy took a small foce from the depths of the Persian empire back to Greece. His achivement is all the more remarkable for the fact that he was not the leader of the army when it started but through great tactical and leadership qualities brought his men home.

Well while I disagree with Hannibal being black because Hannibal was Cathagenian and Cathagenians were white, so it makes NO SENSE, that is not really the argument, just a technicality.

The argument is who was the best warrior? Well a Greek would by far beat anyone, in any way. The Greek Phalanx was the epitomy of courage, they are the ONLY battle unit, where retreat was purposely restricted, and rest was not merrited.

No other military would ever be so dedicated, especially for being farmers and not regular soldiers.

The Greek Phalanx made man, into the ultimate warrior//poet.

When two Greek armies were to meet on a battle field, they'd establish a few overseers to be the "judge" of who truly won, in case there were further desputes, they'd permit the other side as much time as they wanted to ready themselves.

Then when the time came, they'd fall into their ranks, dressed in some of the most frightening armor that man has ever conceived, they start off running in as a wall of spears...smash into the enemy force, and hack and slash and thrust until the others were broken.

The Roman legions did not even practice such a valient tactic, while not the most successful tactic, most United States Special Forces members don't even have the guts to be a Greek Hoplite.

In fact, that breed of human is all but dead now, now soldiers are tought to stay alive, put pressure on, but they aren't taught to be "warriors".

So the question now to ask, is what is a Warrior really? It certainly is not today's soldiers, most of whom would run if they had to fight as a phalanx, although the phalanx was made such that you could not run away, which is ingenious...but still, the "true" courage of men, that bloated heroic duty that is imbeded in the Warrior spirit, seems all but gone, as technology replaces the soul of combat.

Sincerely,
no signature

Genghis Khan. He took a people who did not real own a scrap of land (they were mostly nomads) and made the largest empire. He was one of the first to use biological warfare. He would take corpse of animals and people let them rot in the sun for a few days and then catapult them over his enemies wall. The man was a genius and the greatest warrior this was I think an actual list some were to.
Oh and about Sun Tzu his book the art of war is great but if you mention you must mention Machiavelli and The Prince. These are some of my favourite books.

No actually Europeans had been using the Cow catapult trick for hundreds of years before Ghengis. And Ghengis is actually a failure.

He wasn't a military tactition, he litterally just lead more men, with better weapons, into battle, nothing to do with skill, or intelligence. Just viciousness. And after about 30 years if even that after his death, his entire empire....largest every, disintigrated into small teeny weeny warring states.

Sincerely,
no signature

Gotta say Wallace!

Oh, and Freemason, chill on the "correct everything that anyone says" stuff. It get's a bit old and bothersome. If I wanted to study the encyclopedia, I'd dig out my Britanica's.

regs out...

Maybe you should get your damn encyclopedia, there's so much crap in this thread like "Napoleon was dumb" and "hannibal was black" it's sickening. Misinformation is evil and should be stopped around every corner.

Napoleon was by far not ignorant, and as for Hannibal, no one TRULY knows, but people weren't racist at that time so I doubt that they'd paint him as white, and it makes more sense that he was, since Cartheginians, again, were white...at least caucasion, not like norse men, but not blacks.

Sincerely,
no signature

First I said one of the first not the first. Second Khan fought against larger forces with better weapons Then he stole those weapons and used them. (He used terror tactics Not to mention the fact that Mongolia was a hell of a place to survive making the people that survived much harder).

No Ghengis never fought a real army, closest thing he fought like that was China...but china was so backwards then as it came to tech, they still were poor horse riders.

It was no different than Atila the Hun and his horsemen against Rome, EXCEPT atila was greatly out numbered, Ghengis was not.

Sincerely,
no signature