Greatest (historical) Medieval Generals

[Taffy_is_a_Taff]

Bopa,

The Turks enabled the Italian Renaissance by creating the conditions that encouraged the Byzantine intelligentsia to flee to Italy and start the whole thing.

[Steppe Merc]

What is that supposed to mean, the Rennesisance was already underway mate. The only thing the Turks ever did for Europe was conquer and massacre the eastern half of it.

Yeah, that's a real unbiased view of a people...
How about the Qipchaqs, who were going to help the Hungarians against the Mongols until the Hungarian nobles betrayed their Khan?

In addition, Turkish tribes helped spread a great deal of military technology, as well as being allies (and enemies) of multiple European states.

[matteus the inbred]

i think what Bopa may be referring to is the fact that there was a 'mini-Renaissance' in Italy during the 13th and 14th centuries, Cimabue and Giotto were two of the better known examples of great artists from this period. Of course, medieval Europe had a thriving artistic culture prior to 1453, it would be ridiculous to suggest it didn't, but the true late 15th/16th century Renaissance was hugely (but not exclusively) influenced by the fall of Big C, which spread all kinds of learning, art, culture and ways of thinking across Europe, particularly in Italy, and encouraged exploration and 'outward thinking' to find other ways of trading with the far east.

anyway...i almost forgot John, duke of Bedford, regent of England during Henry VI's minority, who was close to finishing off the French altogether before his untimely death and the emergence of Joan of Arc...

[littlebktruck]

Alexander Nevsky? I don't know much about him or his tactics, but he was pretty successful.

[ajaxfetish]

Edward I, du Guesclin, Guiscard, hasn't come up yet but I'm a Barbarossa fan, Bohemund, Kilij Arslan, and plenty more.

Earlier I'd include Charlemagne, Harold Godwinson, Edward the Elder & sons, and Erik Bloodaxe gets bonus points for his name.

Ajax

[Rosacrux redux]

Interesting topic! I'd like to second the nominations of Mehmed II El Fatih not for the capture of Constantinople (I mean, he was sieging a city with a garisson of 7.300 men, while his force amounted a tad above 100.000 and that's only the combatants, and he had the best equiped and most sophisticated military system of the time at his disposal) but for the rest of his deeds, both in the Balkans and elsewhere. Also, his father, Murad II, is an often overlooked military mastermind. He was really a pacifist (even resigned in Mehmed's favor when the latter was only 12 to follow intellectual pursuits!) but when he took up arms he was a formidable general!

You lot seem to forget Basil II the BulgarSlayer. Probably one of the three greatest byzantine generals of all times (the other two being Belisarius and Heraclius, both way before our timeframe though) and a brilliant general-emperor of the finest Graeco-Roman tradition. Brilliant tactician, extraordinary strategist, able administrator. He might look a one-sided personality but it's a fact that Byzantium could've lasted a few more centuries (or a lot more centuries) with its powers intact if 1 out of 4 emperors was a copy of Basil.

Also, Saladin is really a no-brainer, Alexios Komnenos was a very skilled commander, Samuel of Bulgaria (Basil's main opponent) wasn't shabby either, he just met with a superior foe. Also, Timur Lenk - the greatest genocidal maniac in history along with Chinghiz Khan - is an underrated military commander, he carved a huge empire on his own and even crushed the Ottomans in the times of Bayazit.

I know less about the western generals of the period - mostly I know about the crusaders and frankly I can't find any military mastermind in those wars on the side of the Christians.

P.S. the Renaissance would've happened even without the fall of the "Big C". The Italians have gotten it underway due to the results of the 4th "crusade" for more than 2 centuries anyaway and Byzantium's greatest influence in the Renaissance was the teaching of Georgios Gemistos. In his school in Peloponesus almost all of the Florentine aristocratic youth studied for a period of time! And the Renaissance practically started in Florence...Of course the fleing of many Byzantine intellectuals to Italy greatly enhanced the process, but the bulk of those had fled long before Mehmed took Constantinoupolis. Mehmed didn't let any Greek of substantial intellectual status flle after the capture of the city, he either enlisted them in his service or decapitated them.

[matteus the inbred]

You lot seem to forget Basil II the BulgarSlayer. Probably one of the three greatest byzantine generals of all times (the other two being Belisarius and Heraclius, both way before our timeframe though) and a brilliant general-emperor of the finest Graeco-Roman tradition. Brilliant tactician, extraordinary strategist, able administrator. He might look a one-sided personality but it's a fact that Byzantium could've lasted a few more centuries (or a lot more centuries) with its powers intact if 1 out of 4 emperors was a copy of Basil.

he was the chap who had every 99 out of 100 prisoners blinded, and the hundredth blinded in only one eye so they could lead the others home?
a ruthless bastard, and no mistake! i'm not arguing that the Renaissance wouldn't have happened, just that the process was accelerated. this is one of those arguments that has many sides!

[Kalle]

How about Jeann D'arc? I think she deserves a spot here.

Kalle

[Rosacrux redux]

he was the chap who had every 99 out of 100 prisoners blinded, and the hundredth blinded in only one eye so they could lead the others home?
a ruthless bastard, and no mistake!

Yes, that's the chap alright. A ruthless bastard indeed, but if you compare what he did with what everybody else was doing at the same time (simply butchering the prisoners to the last man) he doesn't come along as nasty. Besides, we are talking about military geniouses, not humanitarians. Usually those two don't go along pretty well - or at all. And as a military leader, Basil was extremely effective, no?

[Meneldil]

How about Jeann D'arc? I think she deserves a spot here.

Kalle

Jeanne d'Arc was surely not a great general. She had little clue about how to win a battle, but she was helped by great generals, whose names are rarely remembered because they were shadowed by the lady (with the exception of Gilles de Rais, who is mostly remembered for being a satanic pedophile and murderer).

The fact she was a woman and claimed to fight according to god's orders surely had a huge impact on the french' moral aswell.

Also, Timur Lenk - the greatest genocidal maniac in history along with Chinghiz Khan -

I can't tell for Timur, cause I haven't really studied his history, but I can't see how Genghis was a genocidal maniac.
Surely, he killed a whole lot of innocents, but he never targetered a chosen ethnical or religious group, unlike Christians and Muslims. AFAIK, he was more tolerant than many other folks.
His 'surrender or die' strategy was not different from the ones sometimes used by christians during Crusades or muslims during the Conquest. The difference is that he conquered places much more populated than Western Europe or Middle East.

[matteus the inbred]

Yes, that's the chap alright. A ruthless bastard indeed, but if you compare what he did with what everybody else was doing at the same time (simply butchering the prisoners to the last man) he doesn't come along as nasty. Besides, we are talking about military geniouses, not humanitarians. Usually those two don't go along pretty well - or at all. And as a military leader, Basil was extremely effective, no?

couldn't agree more...the best leaders have always been extremely ruthless bastards, and it was par for the course at the time as well.

I think Joan of Arc gets her own special category, after all, she had help from above...!

[Kalle]

Well inspiration and motivation is very often at least as important as other factors to determin a great leader or general.The general who show courage lead by example and overall put faith in his or her men have come a long way to victory so I stand by my choice.

If Jeannes brilliant generals are often forgotten that is probably equally true for great generals serving together or under other more famous people.

Kalle

[Steppe Merc]

How about Jeann D'arc? I think she deserves a spot here.

Kalle

No way. She wasn't a general or a warrior, just an insane peasant. A flag can give people moral, does that make a flag a good general?

And no was was Chinggiss a "genocidal maniac". All nomads were often harsher to their settled enemies, but there wasn't much a difference of how Chinggiss treated his enemies and how settled people of the time did.

[Rosacrux redux]

Meneldil - steppe merc

I should've known that Chinghiz has a great following here and by calling him a genocidal maniac I'd attract some unwanted attention... but, nevertheless, I think that it is justified to call him "genocidal", if not "maniac".

Yes, his actions were calculated efforts to terrorize eveyrbody to submission or campaigns of punishment, but that doesn't negate the fact that in his times the Mongols slaughtered roughly 1/5th of the population of Asia. If you don't call that "genocidal", I don't know what you'd call... And he did target a particular people for total extermination: Xsi Xsia. A few hundreds (maybe even a few thousands) people of a nation numbering the millions (1.5 to 2.5 according to estimations) survived the Mongol onslaught. Khwarazm was ...luckier: only 60% of their population massacred. Of course they were quite larger than the Xsi Xsia - more than 7 millions, to the least. The Chinese only lost 1/5th of their population...although they numbered some odd 80 millions at the point in time, so their victims must've been close to 16-18 millions.

Not too shabby for someone who ain't "a genocidal maniac"... even Timur killed less than 1/2 of the number of Chinghiz's victims, no?

[Knight Templar]

I can't tell for Timur, cause I haven't really studied his history, but I can't see how Genghis was a genocidal maniac.
Surely, he killed a whole lot of innocents, but he never targetered a chosen ethnical or religious group, unlike Christians and Muslims. AFAIK, he was more tolerant than many other folks.
His 'surrender or die' strategy was not different from the ones sometimes used by christians during Crusades or muslims during the Conquest. The difference is that he conquered places much more populated than Western Europe or Middle East.

No, he was not particulary against any non-Mongol nation or religious group, but he constantly has killed any men, army or city who hadn't surrendered. AFAIK, Mongols considered their khan as god's emissary on earth, and as considered all resistance against khan as resistance against god. That's why they completely destroyed all enemy's cities froom China (Peking (or Beijing), present capital of China), Persia (Sarkamand), Middle East (Bagdad, Aleppo) to Russia and East Europe.
Christians and Muslims also had this strategy sometimes (crusaders even had "even if you surrender, you die" strategy), but Monglos conquered enormous space, and killed, IIRC, millions of people, mostly innocent citizens. True, that's not genocide against particular race (all of them could have their life saved by surrendering), but against humanity between China and east Europe.

You also seem to forget all great Byzantine emperors-generals before Basil II: Nicephorpus II and John I. Both very very capable genarals and conquered many lands for the Empire, including Crete, Bulgaria and big territory in the east includind cities like Antioch, Beirut, Tripoli...

I'd also like to add Nureddin (or Nur-al-din) and Alexius Comnenus to my list

[Kalle]

Before Jeanne french were loosing. When she came they started winning. Youll have to do better then insane peasent to take her from the list. Peasents are worth less in ur eyes? Cleverness comes not from social class.

Kalle

[matteus the inbred]

and they kept winning after she was burned too, although at the time of her death the war was by no means won...to give her credit for strategy and tactics is possibly to take too much away from people like Jean Bureau and La Hire, professional soldiers who led the army in one sense, while Joan inspired it. howvever, i basically agree with this fom the Wikipedia page;
"She appealed to the...common soldiers, and she often disregarded the war council decisions. The extent of her military leadership is a subject of historical debate. Traditional analysis cites her condemnation trial testimony, which concluded that she was a standard bearer whose primary effect was on morale. Recent scholarship that focuses on the rehabilitation trial testimony asserts that her fellow officers esteemed her as a skilled tactician and a successful strategist. In either case, the army enjoyed remarkable success during her brief career."
it continued to enjoy success after her death, but without her leadership it would never have enjoyed any success at all.

[Kalle]

There we go, thank you Matteus.

Kalle

[Steppe Merc]

I'm not saying that Chinggiss was a particullarly nice person. But any and all numbers given by contemporary historians are extremely suspect, especially when it relates to nomads who a. did not have their own form of writing and b. inflate their numbers and the numbers that the killed as an intimidation strategy.
I'm not saying that he didn't kill people but who didn't kill people in his age? It seems to me that certaint groups, especially nomads because they are the scariest foriegners ever to pretty much all settled peoples, are more rembered for the killing that they did more so than any other people. And we little record of their view, unlike most other cultures.
Look at Bopa's reaction to the Turks, which while he was likely reffering to the Ottomans, many nations still have strong nationlist feelings against them.
It seems that if you "contributed" enough, your killings are washed away. Rome is rembered for being such a great empire instead of enslaving and killing many people, while the Mongol's empire was larger and acquired in a shorter time (and it was quite long lived for a steppe state). And at least the Mongols didn't care if where you came from as long as you were talented, look at Jebe, he tried to kill Chinggiss! I can't imagine a Gaul becoming the second best general in Rome.

Before Jeanne french were loosing. When she came they started winning. Youll have to do better then insane peasent to take her from the list. Peasents are worth less in ur eyes? Cleverness comes not from social class.

Kalle

Peasants are often not warriors, especially in the Medieval era, the exception being of course the longbowmen of the English, and earlier peoples like the Vikings. In any case she was not a warrior, and she was just a religous symbol used by the French noblity, then discarded when it was convienent. And I would never put her on the list to begin with. When compared to Subotai, Jebe, Mehmed, Eran Spahbodh Rustaham Suren-Pahlav (he should also be on the list... he was the "Surena" at Carhae, and inspired the Shahnameh, the great Iranian epic. Also Shapur I ought to be there. Damn, if it's only Medieval, never mind...

Anyway, she's a joke compared to the true greats.

[Meneldil]

Yes, his actions were calculated efforts to terrorize eveyrbody to submission or campaigns of punishment, but that doesn't negate the fact that in his times the Mongols slaughtered roughly 1/5th of the population of Asia.

As pointed out, numbers are quite irrevelant here, mostly because they were mainly recorded - often long after Genghis' dead - by Muslims, who faithfully hated Mongols after Bagdad was destroyed. Add to that the fact Mongols rulers constantly braged about how powerful they were, how badly they hammered their opponents and how easily they could whipe out he whole world if they wanted to, and I doubt any single people on earth could give a rough estimate of the amount of people killed by the Mongols.

If you don't call that "genocidal", I don't know what you'd call... And he did target a particular people for total extermination: Xsi Xsia. A few hundreds (maybe even a few thousands) people of a nation numbering the millions (1.5 to 2.5 according to estimations) survived the Mongol onslaught. Khwarazm was ...luckier: only 60% of their population massacred. Of course they were quite larger than the Xsi Xsia - more than 7 millions, to the least. The Chinese only lost 1/5th of their population...although they numbered some odd 80 millions at the point in time, so their victims must've been close to 16-18 millions. .

Well, I don't want to sound like an ass, but genocide is the constant targettering of a single group, in order to exterminate the given group.
Genghis never looked for the complete extermination of all Xsi Xsia, or of all Chorasmians. Sure, he probably almost whiped them from the face of earth, but only because they were standing in front of him, not because of their ethnical or religious background.
It should also be noticed that both were tolerated in Genghis Empire (people from Khwarasm were quite respected because they were considered as good traders by the Mongols) once they were subdued

Not too shabby for someone who ain't "a genocidal maniac"... even Timur killed less than 1/2 of the number of Chinghiz's victims, no?

AFAIK, the main difference between Timur and Genghis is that the first never tried to create a long-living empire. He just razed cities, looted them, and brought everything he could have found back to Samarkand (which then turned into a huge city). He adopted a short sighted policy, unlike Genghis.

To quote Steppe Merc, I wouldn't say he wasn't really harsh, and that he did not stop all opposition by exterminating his opponents, but well, it was fairly common back then. Genghis is remembered for it just because he did it at a larger scale, in more populated and more developped areas.

Charlemagne (who was also a true great leader IMO) is said to have exterminated a whole lot of saxons and western slavs in order to convince them to convert to christianism. It doesn't make him a genocidal maniac.
Creating a state is a violent process, especially when the creators are people who are used to harsh way of life.

it continued to enjoy success after her death, but without her leadership it would never have enjoyed any success at all.

I see the point here, even if I not fully agree with it. I think the English were doomed to lose at some point. Of course, this is highly arguable

[Prince Cobra]

Bulgarian khans and emperors
Krum (803-814)- pagan khan of Bulgaria. His main enemy was Nicephorus I .
He conquered the eastern part (Carpatia) of Avar state when it was destroyed by Charlemaign ( who took the western part). Byzantium didn't want to have a powerful neigbour. Then emp. Nicephorus I led a huge army against Bulgaria and reached its capital Pliska. Krum retreated from the capital because he wasn't strong enough (but we all know what is the capital for the madieval people). When he had enough forces he bloked the gorges of Balkan mountain and cut the emperor and all his army from Byzantine territory. The emperor Nicephorus tried to retreat but was attacked in one of the gorges (811). The byzantine army was completely destroyed. The emperor was killed (how many emperors do you know which was killed on the battlefield) and the heir to the throne Stauracius was hurted and died some months later. There is a popular legend ( most probably it's true) - bacause of the religious believes the head of the emperor was cut, cleaned by the flesh and became a cup.Krum drank from that cup on the feast after the victory
Christian period
Simeon (893-927) : first bulgarian tzar ( son of kniaz (prince) Boris I)- declared himself as an byzantine emperor. He tried to conquer Constantinople , he even tried to ally with Fatimids vs byzantines ( he needed fleet to capture Constantinople), no success. Excellent general and diplomat- defeated the Hungaries and foced them to move from Eastern Europe to what is now Hungary ,also defeated byzantines (esp. in 917 when he faced the main byz army around Acheloi (river around Anchialo, placed on Black sea coast)), conquered Serbia. Ruled almost the whole Balkan penincula and what is now Romania.
To some extend Samuel (996-1014) who actually started ruling from 971 (first with his brothers aftter thet with tzar Roman (who was eunuch btw))
Kaloian (1197-1207) defeated the strong Crusader army in the battle of Odrin (1205) which was rhe beginning of the decline of Latin empire (1204-1261) . That battle saved Byzantine states Epir and Nicaea from being conquered by Latins ( scientists Ostrogorski and Charles Dil)
Ivan Asen II (1218- 1241) perfect general and politician. He used his diplomacy to subject the bigger part of Balkan peninsula under his power. But in the battle of Klokotnitza (1230) he defeated the bigger army of Teodor Angel Comnenus, emperor of Epir (Epiric army was twice as much as the Bulgarian army ). Ivan Asen II captured the enemy emperor with all his family ( Teodor Comnenus was so sure that he would win that he took his family with himself) but let the Epiric soldiers go their homes. In the end of his life he made a mistake - he married to the daughter of Teodor Comnenus ( beutiful but after Ivan Asen's death she became dangerous for the country ).
By the way there is a map of Bulgaria when Ivan Asen II was ruling (after 1230) in Mtw2 thread- 30 factions (I think 2 page)
Other good generals
Basil II BulgarSlayer- cruel but great emperor. Succeed to survive the defeat of Samuel of Bulgaria in 986 and won the civil war after that. Succeed in conquering Bulgaria. However I don't agree Byz need 4 such emperors .Why? If we talk only about military talent and good administrator - fully agree but not about a personal character. Because Basil II hated women and there is no info for any women in his life ( secret vices)
Others Alexius I Comnenus, Ghengis Khan , Henry V, Timurlan.
And Bayazid (1389-1402) Turkish sultan who defeated the Christian forces in Kosovo. He organised the Turkish forces when his father Murad I was killed.
P.S. I can't stop writing long posts.

[matteus the inbred]

Meneldil - I see the point here, even if I not fully agree with it. I think the English were doomed to lose at some point. Of course, this is highly arguable

I agree with this...the closer France came to being a national identity rather than a collection of disparate princedoms, the harder it became for the massively outnumbered and far-less-wealthy English to use their only viable strategy, divide and conquer. By the fifteenth century this was happening, and there wasn't much the English could do.

I've always liked the name King Krum! Didn't know he was a military success though...

[Kalle]

Peasants are often not warriors, especially in the Medieval era, the exception being of course the longbowmen of the English, and earlier peoples like the Vikings. In any case she was not a warrior, and she was just a religous symbol used by the French noblity, then discarded when it was convienent. And I would never put her on the list to begin with. When compared to Subotai, Jebe, Mehmed, Eran Spahbodh Rustaham Suren-Pahlav (he should also be on the list... he was the "Surena" at Carhae, and inspired the Shahnameh, the great Iranian epic. Also Shapur I ought to be there. Damn, if it's only Medieval, never mind...

Anyway, she's a joke compared to the true greats.

Well how many look great when compared to Subotai?? Most will not look so great in comparison.

On the contrary to what you say peasents were very often warriors and ESPECIALLY in the medieval era.

In Sweden peasents were free men and they had arms and they beat on many occasions danish and german professional soldiers and/or mercanaries. Famous swiss pike forces were not a warrior class, they were peasents. Lots of the the armed forces in various places on earth was made up of peasents or nomads and so on, the simple people.

If I am exxagerating Jeanne you are definitly underestimating both her abilities and importance, no question about that.

Kalle

[Prince Cobra]

Kaloian (1197-1207) defeated the strong Crusader army in the battle of Odrin (1205) which was rhe beginning of the decline of Latin empire (1204-1261) . That battle saved Byzantine states Epir and Nicaea from being conquered by Latins ( scientists Ostrogorski and Charles Dil)
Ivan Asen II (1218- 1241) perfect general and politician. He used his diplomacy to subject the bigger part of Balkan peninsula under his power. But in the battle of Klokotnitza (1230) he defeated the bigger army of Teodor Angel Comnenus, emperor of Epir (Epiric army was twice as much as the Bulgarian army ). Ivan Asen II captured the enemy emperor with all his family ( Teodor Comnenus was so sure that he would win that he took his family with himself) but let the Epiric soldiers go their homes. In the end of his life he made a mistake - he married to the daughter of Teodor Comnenus ( beutiful but after Ivan Asen's death she became dangerous for the country ).
By the way there is a map of Bulgaria when Ivan Asen II was ruling (after 1230) in Mtw2 thread- 30 factions (I think 2 page)

My mistake- 1st page (bottom)'...30 factions...' MtW2 thread
About Kaloyan here is his portray (his skull has been found so the image is realistic)

from http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/kaloyan.gif

[Afonso I of Portugal]

Well, here is a possible list of no English generals (among many others) as you've requested:

Gengis Khan
Tamerlane
Saladin
Almanzor
Ferdinand III, King of Castile-Léon
Afonso I, King of Aragon
Afonso I, King of Portugal
El Cid
Bertrand Du Guesclin
Nuno Álvares Pereira

[bopa the Magyar]

England was in the midst of a civil war when Joan came along. But so was France when Henry came along. Paying the favour in turn eh?

I can't believe I forget Aethelstan of Wessex, first Emperor of all Britain.

[Hurin_Rules]

I think it would be hard to make a case that any other medieval general was better than Ghenghis. One could maybe make a case for Timur, Charlemagne, Mehmet, etc., but none conquered as much territory or as many people as Ghenghis.

[Orda Khan]

Jebe and Subedei are the two most talented generals of any age. The wholescale killings had their justification back then, to those cultures and were generally set in motion due to treachery or what was deemed to be treachery. We can not judge these times or cultures by today's standards

......Orda

[Kagemusha]

I think that the whole question is flawed the question should be the most succesfull general of the medieval era.Ofcourse the Great Khans were masterminds in warfare.But does anybody even remember the leaders of the swiss farmers that halted many times the Habsburg armies and eventually stopped the Habsburgs alltogether from advancing to their cantons.Or The Hungarians nobles who fought all their lives against the Ottomans.Or the Italian condottieri commanders that fought for who ever paid them best.
I just want to ask:Is the best general the one who has the mightiest army?I think one good underdog who is worthy of pointing out would be the Grand Prince of Novgorod,Alexander Nevski.
He stopped the Mongol advance on his domain 1237-1240, altough Novgorod was on a sidetrack on the way of the Mongol Inavasion.He beated The Swedes and Finns on river Neva 1240 and at the same time also stopped the expancion of catholism to Russia.Beated the German Knight order 1242.And last he also beated the Lithunian Incursions to Novgorods area.
So basicly he beat all his enemies but didnt much expand.
And i beleve he was not only mediewal general who defended his domain against all invaders.
This gets us into pretty intresting dilemma.Is the best commander the one who can take largest part of land from his opponents or what are the best qualities of commander of an army? If thats the case should we say that Stalin was the best military leader of WWII.Becouse after the war was over his country had gained most territory from its opponents,and managed to keep that territory also.

[Orda Khan]

The spring thaw saved Novgorod not Nevsky. He did possess the common sense to see that resistance was futile which is why he collaborated with the Mongols and submitted first to Guyuk and secondly to Batu's son Sartaq who was responsible for governing Russia

........Orda