http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Khalid_ibn_al-Walid

any objections?

Nope.

I know Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Constantine, El Sid, Clovis, Richard I, Patton, Bismark, Washington, Napoleon and much more! I have, however, never heard of Khalid ibn al-Walid Nor do I Consider his actions as grand nor as remarkable as such conquest as Alexanders and Napoleons.

defeating the byz and persians at once with inferior forces and less numbers and never losing a single battle >> Caesar, Hannibal, Alexander, Constantine, El Sid, Clovis, Richard I, Patton, Bismark, Washington, Napoleon

it was so bad that the byzantines refused to fight them anymore ... persians were completely conquered ... Alexander lost in Pakistan ... Napoleon lost to the british multiple times ...rest are not even worth to mention, in fact its insulting to do so, you are comparing faggots and midgets to the greatest general in history ... this man was undefeated led the most complete and sweeping conquests ever against enemies superior to him in every way

his military genius has no rival

example

http://www.grandestrategy.com/2007/12/sword-of-allah-chapter-35-yarmuk.html

40k-80k byzantines vs 16k-24k Muslims

Alexander never "conquered" Alexandria. He founded it lol

Napoleon failed in Italy, Egypt and Russia.

Khalid Ibn Walid NEVER lost. And he fought for his whole life.

Alexander was gay and Pakistan beat him down under Porus ... no euro murderers have ever gotten into Pakistan until the satanist british

Richard failed and was even captured at one point

and amazing how u only mentioned western generals ... no chengiz khan or timur khan or zafar khan or atilla? no baybars or salahuddeen or cyrus the great?

There was no Pakistan. Why can't you get this? It's called Indian subcontinent.

because then these Indians will try and claim victory when it was the land of Pakistan


India wasn't a civilization until later

You don't get it bro. The zionists do the same exact thing. They do propaganda to show the world that Israel was always there.

Anyways, will you doubt that Pakistan, India and Brngladash are on the Indian subcontinent? No right?

That's what I'm saying. He was defeated by the Indian subcontinent people in the region that is known today as Pakistan.

no thats diff

call it what you want, he still lost and westerners try and conceal this

Im pretty sure my Global teacher told me Alexander lost.

Anyways, he does have my gratitude for founding Alexandria. But he was a murder nonetheless.

hes still extremely overrated, his dad is the only reason he ever won

You gotta admit man... militarily he was a genius (besides his failure against elephants). How many times have you conquered the whole Mediterranean in the game?

1) I never said Alexander conquered Alexandria
2)Your right in pointing out that there's many generals I didn't list, but this is because it's not really sensible to wright them all out.
I agree Eastern generals are quite impressive,I just don't feel that Khalid ibn al-Walid was the best. Paul Emil von Lettow-Vorbeck, To my knowledge, was also undefeated and he turned British forces in Africa into his play things with his guerrilla tactics. Alexander the Great had never actually lost, In fact the only reason he abandoned the Indian campaign was because his units were getting rowdy. Scipio Africanus, A roman general in the second Punic war, was also undefeated. His most memorable fear was besting Hannibal of Carthage. Genghis Khan's empire was about twice the size of the Arab empire, and they had to take on china who is compatible to Byzantium.

But his victories are much greater victories.

Chengiz Khan (not "Genghis", I don't know where they got "Genghis" from) initial empire that he created by himself was not that large, the massive expansion came later ... he didn't even live to see China conquered, he simply united the hordes. The Mongol empire was larger, true, but not in % of world population ...the Muslim Arab conquests are the most overlooked in history by Westerners, but the largest united empire to that time was created ... from the center of Pakistan to Anatolia and then all of N Africa into Spain .. you also forget that 4 out of the 5 hordes would embrace Islam, starting with the Golden Horde ... so it looks like Islam won that battle too, even with the Ikhanate-Frankish alliance in full swing ...

And BS, Alexander DID lose in India to Porus, Westerners will make every excuse in the world but the facts are facts ... he even gave some of his empire up as tribute so he could facilitate his escape ... his troops were also superior to his foes, unlike Khalid's (ra). An example of his tactical genius was given in the battle of Yarmuq

Defeating the Byzantines and Persians SIMULTANEOUSLY >>> all of those achievements ... Khalid bin al Waleed (ra) stands out amongst them because of that ... he fought in numerous battles, having never lost even when he had inferior troop quality and inferior numbers ... he was also one to engage in the battles himself, and just command ... in a battle against the Byzantines, he once broke 9 swords ... his command of cavalry is especially notable, as well as his unrivaled skirmishing skils ...amazing how all of the great military conquests are venerated except the ones by the Muslims under the Rashideen Khilafat ...

Le Caire wrote:But his victories are much greater victories.

show me anything that Alexander ever did that rivals this

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Walaja

Why are you asking me?

do you mean King Porus? His but was handed to him and he became a Hellenistic satrap! It was victory both militarily a politically. As for Alexanders army's, they were actually quite weak by my reasoning. Orthogonally his army may have been pure Macedonian but as he pushed into Persia his army basically became a conglomerate of Macedonian, Greek, and Persian troops. His victories were earned through strategy alone! And do remember Alexander started in Macedon, so they had to fight through the Greeks and the Persians.

At the Battle of the Hydaspes Alexanders 30000~ infantry and 7000~ cavalry Fought King Porus' army of 20000-50000 infantry, 2000-4000 cavalry, 130 FULLY ARMORED WAR ELEPHANTS, and 1000 chariots! So about 37000 worn out, home weary, nearly
mutinous, Greek-Persian army VS 39000 Well train Indians who were well supplied and had the home field advantage. Did I mention the freaken elephants? Well even with the worst assumed, Alexander lost less than a thousand of his men while killing/capturing about 35000 of Porus' troops. This was only possible due to his strategy which forced Porus to leave his flank and rear open. BTW Alexander then turned Porus into a puppet and went home because he didn't want to fight in the monsoon season, nothing else.

revisionist history

greek historians made this nonsense up to explain their boy losing, in fact this wasn't even recorded by them until later

he ran home after getting spanked by war elephants and gave up his kingdom over there so he could retreat safely

this guy was a complete nut, he would've kept advancing until he lost and he did

Greek revision of history my but, More like Sayf revision of history.

yeah people who weren't even there wrote about it, great sources

you're taking a page out of greek mythology, he got murked .. end of it ..

People who were there accounted it to. Your point is invalid.

who was there? bring your sources ... nothing is even known about this battle until decades after ... and please explain how he was going to defeat war elephants in battle

and IIRC he never even made it back to Macedonia but died in Iraq

defeat war elephants? he didn't need to! if you scare them they go berserk and destroy their own side, But Alexander infantry had the job of going toe to toe with the fearsome beast and they bested them. There are records taken in the campaign from various sources as well.