Frederick the Great, Suleiman the Magnificent or Möngke Khan

?

  • Frederick

    Votes: 5 41.7%
  • Mongke

    Votes: 2 16.7%
  • Suleiman

    Votes: 5 41.7%

  • Total voters
    12
Oct 2016
1,174
Merryland
Khan, then Suleiman (who benefited from disorganized opposition), then Frederick, who lost a lot of battles and needed brit help to survive.


Sorry to be a spoilsport but I just find these sort of questions infantile. Still, I guess they start debate!
I wonder if the OP has some random generator. 'which is better leader, Colonel Flagg of Mash, Captain Binghampton of McHale's Navy, or Lieutenant Tragg of Perry Mason'

flagg.png
 
Last edited:

Lord Oda Nobunaga

Ad Honorem
Jan 2015
5,635
Ontario, Canada
Shouldn't we have a more methodical approach? Why those three in particular? They don't really have anything in common.
 
Last edited:

tornada

Ad Honoris
Mar 2013
15,386
India
Uriyangkhadai. He would command the key army in attacking the Song, after having conquered Yunnan, Dai Viet, and Eastern Tibet. Though interestingly, his appointment as tutor was before he proved himself at high command, so it was likely made just on potential.
Or his ancestry. The man was after all a direct descendant of Subutai. Maybe Military Genius just ran in the family.
 
Mar 2016
1,222
Australia
I don't really see why these three men were chosen for comparison, considering they lived and fought in vastly different settings and contexts, with a gap of over 500 years between the three of them. They fought different enemies, in different locations, with different technologies, and in different geopolitical contexts. It makes no sense to compare them. Try sticking to generals that were contemporaries or near-contemporaries to get a more relevant and interesting discussion going.
 
  • Like
Reactions: sailorsam
Feb 2018
245
US
Or his ancestry. The man was after all a direct descendant of Subutai. Maybe Military Genius just ran in the family.
Yes you are right, good point. The immediate descendants of the established Mongol elite had a chance to prove themselves in positions of influence, though they were sacked quickly if they underperformed.

Sorry to be a spoilsport but I just find these sort of questions infantile. Still, I guess they start debate!
I agree (especially this bizarre topic which seems like RNG'd names), but sadly it does seem necessary for more-active debate around here. Maybe it's just been me, but the forum discussion has been rather uninteresting as of late.