2. Julius Caesar
3. Hannibal Barca
4. Alexander the Great
The complexity of warfare during the napoleonic era and the fact that Napoleon was so successful makes him the most impressive.
Julius Caesar was litterally invincible in combat.
Hannibal Barca fought in a time where warfare was relatively simple and he didnt come up against particularly strong commanders.
Alexander the Great basicly inherited the worlds most formidable army and was not up against any comparable enemy. He was still great though its just that his enemies were a cakewalk.
Its an apple to oranges comparison...... no such ranking across 2000 + years makes any sense
Also what exactly is the point of such rankings... will the best ranked guy be eligible for a free toaster ? or what ?.... really what is the practical value ?..... do we envisage a universe where Napoleon would lead space mongols against julius caesar's planetary defenses ?
Or has someone somewhere received these 4 CVs and wants to decide whom to hire as a general ?