Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Alexander?

[PittBull260]

alright i saw this all over TV, some ppl say Genghis is the best military commander ever, some say Napoleon and some say Alexander, i wanna hear your opinions

I personally think genghis khan is the best, he NEVER lost a battle under his command(or at least there is no record of it), and on all of his battles he was either lightly or heavily outnumbered..thats pretty amazing

[PanzerJaeger]

Khan.

His tactics transcend time and technology.

60 years ago they changed the name to blitzkrieg, today they call it Shock and Awe, but its all based on his style.

I dont think much of Napoleon, and Alex was no better than Manstien in my opinion.

[edyzmedieval]

Genghis Khan...

He was a great commander....

[Byzantine Prince]

http://img292.echo.cx/img292/9413/3887517ik.jpg
Alexander the Greatest

One of the few people I actually look up to. Reading the history of his 9-year campaign opens my eyes to what the sons of Zeus can accomplish with the right motivation.

[Meneldil]

I dont think much of Napoleon

I'm pretty sure that if Napoleon was German or American, you would be like "OMG, Napoleon is over-awesome !!" :rolleyes2:

Genghis Khan is probably the best commander ever, as he faced a lot of different people with different strategy, and still achieved to defeat them all. He destroyed some of the most powerful empires that have ever existed with a group of steppe tribemen.
Napoleon comes second (but far behind Genghis), as he fought against the most powerful empires of his time, almost conquered all of europe, and ruled a country that was about to crumble. But, in the end, he lost.
As for Alexander, well, he fought against not really good commanders, and although the Persian Empire was wealthier and bigger than Macedonia, it was decaying from corruption and bad ruling, and collapsed after a few defeats. His biggest achievement was IMO to conquer and rule all of Greece rather than defeating the 'mighty' Persian Empire. But, just as Napoleon, in the end, he lost, as his empire disapeared right after his death.

[AggonyDuck]

Genghis by far... ~;)

[Watchman]

Napoleon. He was on the most equal footing with his opponents in actual military power. Alexander had superior new methods at his disposal, whereas Temujin had the always considerable power of massed steppe-nomad hordes at his disposal - plus he got lucky. Had China not been in one of its "civil war and splinter states" periods at the time he'd probably never have become a Great Khan to begin with.

As acute superiority in military method and pure conjecture are at best distantly derived from skill as a commander (unless the guy actually invented or introduced the better method), that leaves Napoleon. Plus unlike Genghis he actually pretty much did run the show by himself, which started backfiring when his physical condition and mental acuteness later began to detoriate.

[Franconicus]

Hard to compare. Each of them was great. Each of them had new better technologies and created new tatics to use it.
After all I go for Genghi, because he created a new superpower that lasted. Napoleon knew how to win but he did not know how to end war and so he lost everything. Besides that, yes, he was a brillliant commander and much more than that ~:cheers:

[cegorach]

Napoleon. :book:

[caesar44]

Caesar-, the first man ever to ruled the land from the Atlantic to the Euphrates !

[Grey_Fox]

Where's Subetai, Jebe Noyen, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Belisarius, Manstein, or Kesselring?

[Kagemusha]

From this trio its a close one but i will say Genghis Khan.He wasnt only a great strategist but i think his greatest achievement was to create the Horde at first place.I dont think it has been a easy task to take a bunch of freedom loving steppe people,and convert them to a most diciplined army of that time. :bow:

[PanzerJaeger]

I'm pretty sure that if Napoleon was German or American, you would be like "OMG, Napoleon is over-awesome !!" :rolleyes2:

Keep the insults in the backroom or Ill be forced to combine the terms "surrender monkey" and "you are a" in the same sentence. :evil:

[Shadow]

Of course Genghis Khan ~D

[Orda Khan]

Chingis Khan, easily. Most of the negative comments here about opponents not being on equal terms etc are a little bit unfounded or at least very misguided. There was no element of luck in his conquests. Northern China was not completely conquered by the time he died and Muqali was left in command of the Chinese campaign while Chingis destroyed Khwarazm, completely outnumbered in both areas. Only one thing has prevented him being hailed as the superior commander he was. The large scale slaughter.

Just to point out to PitBull 260, Chingis was defeated and it is well documented. Jamuqa defeated him at Dalan Balzhut in 1187 and again at Kalakalzhit, he was forced to withdraw to the swamps of Baljuna

......Orda

[The Wizard]

Not Chingis, but Subedei. ~:)

Oh, and Orda, we might as well ignore those losses. They were eventually overcome (and how!), just like Timur's early losses.



~Wiz

[PittBull260]

Temujin had the always considerable power of massed steppe-nomad hordes at his disposal - plus he got lucky. Had China not been in one of its "civil war and splinter states" periods at the time he'd probably never have become a Great Khan to begin with.
yes he could.....he took on humoungous empires bigger and stronger than china at that time buddy..he would've demolished China even if it was united...

[Steppe Merc]

Chingis Khan for sure. Alexander was good, but his empire disentergrated even faster than Chingis', and his armies weren't near the level of Chingis. Chingis and his sucessors fought and won against armies that were far more diverse than Alexander's enemies.

And Ceasar was nothing compared to Alexander, much less Chingis. Ceasar was just a politician, rather than a true warrior.


Temujin had the always considerable power of massed steppe-nomad hordes at his disposal - plus he got lucky. Had China not been in one of its "civil war and splinter states" periods at the time he'd probably never have become a Great Khan to begin with.
Not true at all. Temujin started out with no army at all, and built up an army taken from very diverse people, which he held together with his charisma and will.

[Lodbrok]

Genghis easily. Napolean and Alexander were both exceptional commanders but Gengis Khan was the greatest conquerer who ever lived.

[Oaty]

As far as conquering Alexander

As for creating an empire Ghengis Khan. He looked to the future and even after his death the empire expanded.

A bit unfair to bring Alexander into this as he was'nt expecting an early death in his early 30's.

Would be quite interesting to see what happened if he lived to a ripe old age. But too likely as vast as an empire he created in such a short time, would fall apart upon his death. Just for the fact all the other kings would see it as a time to rebel.

Napolean is quite out of the question IMO as his empire did'nt even last his lifetime.

[nokhor]

i don't know whether the original poster meant statesmanship as in the longevity or craftmanship of the empires they founded back or just pure military ability so i will assume the latter.

i would rank genghis, caesar and alexander above napoleon because they fought a variety of different enemies from civilized states to tribes whereas napoleon [with the exception of the egyptian sojourn] mainly fought against opponents with the same cultural and military organization as him. another important criterion would be strategic area but all three of these guys fought across a vast range. caesar campaigned between egypt and britain, alex between greece and india, genghis between china and iran. so they're all roughly equal there. when it comes to military organization caesar and alex refined armies that had been created by their predecessors but genghis khan created his from scratch.

[Orda Khan]

Not Chingis, but Subedei. ~:)

Oh, and Orda, we might as well ignore those losses. They were eventually overcome (and how!), just like Timur's early losses.



~Wiz

Hello Wiz,
Quite true but I wished to point out that the man was not completely invincible.

The Subedei question is something that could be discussed. He was a veritable genius of strategy but let us not forget that he was initially the understudy of Jebe. Imagine what might have been had Jebe not died prematurely. They had become a very formidable partnership during their reconnaissance of the Black Sea area. Yet whatever they achieved, it was Chingis who noticed their potential. He was definitely not a ruler who relied on others to plan out his victories

......Orda

[Colovion]

The Great Khan, no question.

[Craterus]

A bit unfair to bring Alexander into this as he was'nt expecting an early death in his early 30's.

Unfortunately, Alexander's empire was already beginning to crumble just before his death. He wanted to go, his troops wanted to go home. Then he died, and the empire was split.

[caesar44]

Chingis Khan for sure. Alexander was good, but his empire disentergrated even faster than Chingis', and his armies weren't near the level of Chingis. Chingis and his sucessors fought and won against armies that were far more diverse than Alexander's enemies.

And Ceasar was nothing compared to Alexander, much less Chingis. Ceasar was just a politician, rather than a true warrior.


Not true at all. Temujin started out with no army at all, and built up an army taken from very diverse people, which he held together with his charisma and will.


:wall: :wall: :wall: :wall: :sweatdrop: :sweatdrop: :wall: :bomb:


1. Caesar was a soldier , please...
2. He took gaul
3. He took Egypt
4. He was the first "non barbaric" in britannia
5. He conquered any (that is any) roman opponent
6. He took asia minor
And on and on
20 years of military success , and you call him a politician...
He was elegant , but he died like a soldier
:book:

[The Wizard]

Hello Wiz,
Quite true but I wished to point out that the man was not completely invincible.

The Subedei question is something that could be discussed. He was a veritable genius of strategy but let us not forget that he was initially the understudy of Jebe. Imagine what might have been had Jebe not died prematurely. They had become a very formidable partnership during their reconnaissance of the Black Sea area. Yet whatever they achieved, it was Chingis who noticed their potential. He was definitely not a ruler who relied on others to plan out his victories

......Orda

True, in terms of seeing potential and seizing it, Chingis has no equal. One sees it all through his reign -- from the khuriltai where he was proclaimed khakhan until his very death, where he had all witnesses of his burial executed so as to forever preserve the mystery and interest surrounding his death and therefore his person (okay, debatable, but a sound hypothesis even though I say so myself).

Caesar44: Caesar was an equal of the others... within the boundaries in which he acted. Caesar was more a man who took what was provided by the generations that came before him, and combined that with his own abilities and tactfulness. He is clearly outshined in statesmanship by Alexander and Chingis Khan in turn.

On the tactical side, I find Lucius Lucinius Lucullus an equal if not greater general. But that is pure tactics and strategy; Lucullus completely lacked Caesar's charisma with the troops.

As said, Caesar performed very well within his own theater of operations; but overall he is easily outshined by others. He is higher in my book than Pyrrhus or Hannibal (stategically), though.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

4. He was the first "non barbaric" in britannia
Britians were not barbaric, nor were any of his enemies.

This is why I find Chingis the best. He built his empire from scratch. Sure the nomadic tribes already existed, and the basic soldier type had existed for centuries, but there wasn't really any Mongol leader that he inherited his army or land from. Alex got his army from Philip, and while he certaintly improved it, Philip was going to invade Persia anyway.
And Caesar had far more prior advacments that he took advantage of. The army was there, Rome had already fought with Gaul and Iberia and Asia Minor.

[scaddenp]

Hello Wiz,
Quite true but I wished to point out that the man was not completely invincible.

The Subedei question is something that could be discussed. He was a veritable genius of strategy but let us not forget that he was initially the understudy of Jebe. ......Orda

Hmm. I can only look at awe at Subedei strategy but there is a suggestion that Jebe might have been the better tactician. I doubt we have the data to make a judgement. However, from what what we know of his age, Chingis must have subdued China without him which is no mean feat - just not one we know a lot about.

I would add Hannibal to the list too.

[Red Harvest]

The poll is somewhat misnamed: it says "military commander" but it lists conquering heads of state who lead in the field. To me that means you must weigh their ability not only to lead an army to win campaigns, but to hold an empire together/rule at the same time--a much more challenging task since there are many more strategic aspects to consider.

Genghis Khan would probably be at or near the top for head of state/commander. Napoleon would come in 2nd to him because of the severity and nature of the reverses he suffered. Caesar could certainly be placed in there as well. Alexander is a tough call, partly because he inherited a system built to conquer the world of the time, partly because of his opposition, and partly because he didn't conquer to the West, nor did he live long enough to show that he could manage things. He was an ultra aggressive field commander, and with the force he had, and the opposition he faced it, served him well. What isn't clear is if he could have performed as well vs. other great commanders.

Now if we go strictly by military command abilities: Hannibal would probably be #1 in my book. (I think he would have beaten Alexander based on personality differences.) Had he actually been leading Carthaginian govt directly, he would have won the war vs. Rome.

Wellington probably deserves a mention here as would Scipio Africanus. Wellington was brilliant, but never really faced Napoleon on what could be considered even terms. Ditto for Scipio vs. Hannibal at Zama.

[kallitheus]

I think that in order to gather some facts so that we can compare the three
aforementioned leaders,i feel i have to pose the following question:

How and in which way did each one of these men contribute to the evolution of warfare?

[Orda Khan]

In answer to this question, Chingis created a system and disciplined command among an army of races. True Mongols were but a small percentage of his army. His ability to adapt, to utilise the technologies of the people he conquered is another admirable feature of this unique and truly magnificent leader.
Forget the eventual size of the 'Mongol Empire', take another look at the territory conquered by Chingis Khan. To achieve this much, from such a meagre beginning, in one lifetime is beyond imagination.

.....Orda

[caesar44]

Ok , Caesar was a military genius as Alexander , hanibaal , Scipio major , Napoleon and Temuchin , and this was the topic of the thread , but in an overall picture , one should look at a man's success -

1. Alexander's empire collapsed in a year
2. Hannibal was a political disaster
3. Scipio major did not managed even to save himself from prosecution
4. Napoleon ended his life as the ruler of a small room in a smaller island
5. Temuchin...hhhmmmm....he was great in everything , but , his empire fell immediately to a civil war , and never again was united , he fought against a dying muslim and chinese empires and against slavic tribes

After Caesar's death , and 15 years of conflicts , his empire (his , until than it was a republic) was a firm and united empire for centuries , he was the base for Augustus and for the mightiest empire the world had ever seen
:book:

[xemitg]

Khan and Alexander both had fundamental tactical superiority over those they vanquished. Napoleon's enemies had all the things the French had which makes him even more amazing of a commander. If you think khan was the greatest you must keep in mind that his troops were tough as nails which goes a long way in war.

[The Wizard]

That is not an argument against, it is an argument for Chingis.

And caesar44, Chingis Khan's empire outlasted his own death by quite the margin when compared to all the others, amongst them Caesar. It took Octavianus' political insight to reunite the empire once and for all, not Caesar's arrogance.



~Wiz

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

Napoleon - definately.

Temujin had superior tactics of nomads against oponents and weak struggling between each other neigbors like russians, chinese etc.

Aleksandr had superior weapons against hordes wariors almost without discipline and with weak ruler.

[nokhor]

i've always disliked the conventional view that genghis khan campaigned against a 'weak' china. the chinese were divided into three states, it is true, but each state could muster hundreds of thousands of warriors. the most powerful non chinese state genghis campaign against was that of khwarezm and genghis basically defeated that in one campagin. by contrast, the conquest of northern china wasn't even completed by the time genghis died, and it took 3 generations of mongols, over half a century to subjugate all china.

and all these great commanders were also able to exploit divisions within their supposedly monolithic antagonists. caesar had gallic allies and german mercs against the gauls, alexander rallied subordinate peoples within the persian empire to his side. napoleon was able to translate battlefield success into detaching members of coalitions opposed to him as well as gain recruits from the disempowered like the poles. and genghis certainly convinced peoples within the empires he attacked to join his cause, like the nomads he subverted within china to give him control of the great wall. hannibal got gauls in northern italy as well as roman allies like capua to defect to his side. so i feel its never a case of one great man against the 'boundless armies' of the Other, just as it's also never a case of 'anybody' could have cake walked against the Other because they were so riven by dissent and paralyzed by jealousies. i think the truth lies somewhere in the middle where the great commanders are able to capitalize on the disaffection in their enemies camp, but the same types of disaffection also existed on their side as well and have and will always exist within any one side during a war. its just that the great commanders exploit the disaffection of their enemies so well, and it's often well propagandized usually by themselves. that it is often easy to fail to notice that the reason for the blunders that they commit and gloss over is usually due to some of the tensions within their own side.

[Steppe Merc]

5. Temuchin...hhhmmmm....he was great in everything , but , his empire fell immediately to a civil war , and never again was united , he fought against a dying muslim and chinese empires and against slavic tribes
~:eek:
Slavic tribes? Russians were far more advanced than mere tribes. Besides, they had little in the way of tactical similarity with Slavs. And Khawarizim Empire I thought was just recently founded, and wasn't really dying...
And Chingis' empire may have splintered... didn't Caesar's as well? ~;)


Aleksandr had superior weapons against hordes wariors almost without discipline and with weak ruler.
Eh, I wouldn't call the Persians hordes. From what I've read, they weren't nearly as bad as the Greeks potrayed them, though their army wasn't exactly built to combat phanlaxs.

[soda]

The Persians were a decaying empire when Alexander came.

[PittBull260]

Temujin had superior tactics of nomads against oponents and weak struggling between each other neigbors like russians, chinese etc.
struggle between each other? Hungary united it's armies with other European troops..and still lost...know your facts bro ;)

[Colovion]

There are many people in this thread who have, judging from their comments, only read the hollywood version of the Mongol campaigns. Please at least do some in-depth reading on the issue before commenting. :bow:

After reading a number of books on Alexander and Ghengis I can safely say my vote falls with the latter. As for Napoleon I would need to read more into his empire building. However, judging that he lost his empire by his foolish Russian campaign and had a Waterloo, Ghengis wins it; having nothing to hinder his heralds and only claims to increase his rapoir. He battled with almost every military entity in the world and utterly crushed each one. The mere example that the Mongols thought of the Europeans as barbarians milling about on an insignificant, dreary penninsula gives one quite the Euro-supremist reality check. http://www.handykult.de/plaudersmilies.de//wink2.gif

[Steppe Merc]

struggle between each other? Hungary united it's armies with other European troops..and still lost...know your facts bro ;)
True, though to be fair the king didn't have the nobles really on his side, and the stupid nobles alienated his best chance of winning, their Kipchaq allies who had already fought the Mongols. But not all of his enemies were divided, though it seems that way. How united were any nations at that point, especially the feudal ones? Really, the divided countries argument could be used for any country.

[Colovion]

True, though to be fair the king didn't have the nobles really on his side, and the stupid nobles alienated his best chance of winning, their Kipchaq allies who had already fought the Mongols. But not all of his enemies were divided, though it seems that way. How united were any nations at that point, especially the feudal ones? Really, the divided countries argument could be used for any country.

Bela dismissed the Cumans and Kipchaks in the middle of Subatai's invasion of Hungary. After he saw them running back into the Carpathians they were rather arrogant, as we know medieval Europeans were prone to be. They also thought that a nice spot hemmed in on the Sajo River was a good idea - turns out it was their undoing and the entire army was destroyed as they fled, after being thoroughly flanked.

I could go on forever. :duel:

[caesar44]

~:eek:
Slavic tribes? Russians were far more advanced than mere tribes. Besides, they had little in the way of tactical similarity with Slavs. And Khawarizim Empire I thought was just recently founded, and wasn't really dying...
And Chingis' empire may have splintered... didn't Caesar's as well? ~;)


Eh, I wouldn't call the Persians hordes. From what I've read, they weren't nearly as bad as the Greeks potrayed them, though their army wasn't exactly built to combat phanlaxs.


Facts , facts
The Khwarezmid empire was a province of the Ghaznavis empire since 992 , and as independent kingdom since 1077 to 1220 (when the Mongols took it) , that is 143 years............ hhhhhhmmmmmmmmmmm "recently founded" :book:

Again , facts , no more

[Orda Khan]

China was definitely not weak opposition, this is an absurd suggestion. It was vast armies of mainly Chinese that Qubilai himself used to defeat Ariq Boke and secure for himself the title.

In fairness, Hungary should not be mentioned for this was some 14 years after Chingis had died.

Yes the Khwarazmian Empire was not exactly a newly formed empire. The fact still remains that their armies were by no means weak and completely outnumbered the Mongols ( who were still campaigning in China ) yet Khwarazm was utterly crushed in a couple of years during a campaign of incredible coordination

.......Orda

[Steppe Merc]

Sorry, I was incorrect. Must have gotten something confused, my bad. :bow:

[master of the puppets]

i voted for the great khan, though i do believe that a little bit of his greatness comes from luck of the draw. many of his enemies outnumbered him but used ancient tactics and were unwilling to alter there ways to combat an inventive foe. had he fought a war in which he fought an inventive enemy then he may have lost.

napoleon was awsome also, as was alexander.

[kallitheus]

mere example that the Mongols thought of the Europeans as barbarians milling about on an insignificant, dreary penninsula gives one quite the Euro-supremist reality check.


I think that at least something that must be credited at Genghis Khan,
is that he and his army is one of the very few armies who ever beat the Europeans (or westerners,or whatever you like),on their own ground,and without european allies or european technology.

[The Wizard]

Bela dismissed the Cumans and Kipchaks in the middle of Subatai's invasion of Hungary. After he saw them running back into the Carpathians they were rather arrogant, as we know medieval Europeans were prone to be. They also thought that a nice spot hemmed in on the Sajo River was a good idea - turns out it was their undoing and the entire army was destroyed as they fled, after being thoroughly flanked.

I could go on forever. :duel:

Actually, the Archduke of Austria, Frederick, intrigued against Béla, over a couple of insignificant territories on the Austro-Hungarian border. He did so by insulting the Cumans in their encampment and causing mass riots (IIRC, it lead to the death of the Cuman king, or his son), prompting the Cumans to leave Hungary, pillaging along the way, and being settled in Asia Minor by the Nicaean emperor John II Lascaris.

Just another nice example of how completely unimportant squabbling -- in the light of a great danger to European independence -- lead to a most unfortunate series of defeats which shaped the history of eastern Europe for centuries to come.



~Wiz

[Petrus]

Khan and Alexander both had fundamental tactical superiority over those they vanquished. Napoleon's enemies had all the things the French had which makes him even more amazing of a commander. If you think khan was the greatest you must keep in mind that his troops were tough as nails which goes a long way in war.

In 1804, Napoleon's army was by far the best in europe.

Because it had been at war since 1792, because it's officers were all grown up from ranking soldiers and because it was build from nothing it was organized on a very rational and very efficient base.

This made a very experimented army, that was used to victory, whose organization and tactics were very efficient and very superior to other european armies and that was led by competent young men.

Napoleon was a brilliant strategist and tactician but it would have been extremely difficult if not impossible for him to reach his amazing victories with a standard army of his times.

From this point of view he can be placed at about the level of Alexander or Friedrich II of prussia.

[Colovion]

Actually, the Archduke of Austria, Frederick, intrigued against Béla, over a couple of insignificant territories on the Austro-Hungarian border. He did so by insulting the Cumans in their encampment and causing mass riots (IIRC, it lead to the death of the Cuman king, or his son), prompting the Cumans to leave Hungary, pillaging along the way, and being settled in Asia Minor by the Nicaean emperor John II Lascaris.

Just another nice example of how completely unimportant squabbling -- in the light of a great danger to European independence -- lead to a most unfortunate series of defeats which shaped the history of eastern Europe for centuries to come.



~Wiz


Well Met, Wizard :bow:

I agree - seems that the uncanny ability the Europeans had at bungling up victories and defending their homelands stemmed from their inate draw to in-fighting and squabbling. It certainly had nothing to do with their technology or a lack in battle-fervour. I didn't know that about the Cumans - perhaps the Kipchaks were dismissed a different way - but it makes more sense that they left once the Cumans had or the way Bela and his peers treated the Cumans repelled the Kipchaks as well. Looking more in depth at both of our reasons for the two factions splitting off draws one to the conclusion that perhaps they decided that they did not need the Kipchaks and Cumans and so felt no wrong-doing to insult them and tell them what they really felt about them. Many unfortunate things occur in a 'victory' party where wine and ale flows freely through an army, especially a mosaic such as Bela's assembly.

As for the Khwarazmian Empire, I recall reading that their armies never were able to fully take the field against the Mongols. A combination of the Mongol's incredible coordination of mounted troops, deft ability to bring a city to it's knees faster than any armed force I've ever read about, and the Khwarazmian's assuming that the mounted steppe warriors wouldn't be able to topple their grand walled cities. So essentially the Mongols went from one fortification to another, each assuming they were safe until the fire rained from the heavens and the Mongol seige-works began their obliteration.

[The Wizard]

Cumans is another term for Qipchaqs. ~;)

Since so many Cumans populated the Russian steppe, the Blue Horde and its successor, the Golden Horde, were often referred to as the Qipchaq Khanate.

And the Mongols besieged Khwarezmian cities while smaller armies continuously and destructively harassed the Khwarezmian armies. Bad leadership and indecision lead to these field armies accomplishing absolutely nothing. The swift collapse of the Khwarezmian empire is the greatest testimony to Chingis Khan's military abilities.



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

I think Cuman is the European term, though I may be incorrect on this acount.

[Colovion]

Cumans is another term for Qipchaqs.

:embarassed:

Yes - the Mongols were very adept at seeing a threatening fortification, sieging it with a force to neutralize the target and would move on to the next open target, 'neutralizing' the static fortifications as they came across them. Reminds me of the French chevauchee in a way.

[Orda Khan]

Cumans is another term for Qipchaqs. ~;)

Yep.....Cumans, Qipchaqs and Polovtsians


And the Mongols besieged Khwarezmian cities while smaller armies continuously and destructively harassed the Khwarezmian armies. Bad leadership and indecision lead to these field armies accomplishing absolutely nothing. The swift collapse of the Khwarezmian empire is the greatest testimony to Chingis Khan's military abilities.
~Wiz

An initial move by Jebe on the left flank to draw Khwarazmian strength to the south while the Mongol army assembled was successful. Chagatai and Ogodei took Otrar and Chingis and Subedei disappeared to the north. Jochi operated along a 500 mile front in a series of attacks and even split his already small force in order to create more confusion. Out of nowhere, having crossed the Kizil Kum desert, Chingis Khan and Subedei were at the gates of Bukhara. Through superior mobility and incredible communication and timing, the huge Khwarazmian army and their Qangli Qipchaq allies were utterly destroyed

........Orda

[nokhor]

Yep.....Cumans, Qipchaqs and Polovtsians



An initial move by Jebe on the left flank to draw Khwarazmian strength to the south while the Mongol army assembled was successful. Chagatai and Ogodei took Otrar and Chingis and Subedei disappeared to the north. Jochi operated along a 500 mile front in a series of attacks and even split his already small force in order to create more confusion. Out of nowhere, having crossed the Kizil Kum desert, Chingis Khan and Subedei were at the gates of Bukhara. Through superior mobility and incredible communication and timing, the huge Khwarazmian army and their Qangli Qipchaq allies were utterly destroyed

........Orda


sound familiar to any of our military historians out there? this operational strategy is eerily similar to another campaign cunducted almost a thousand years later and with equally impressive results; operation sichelschnitt by mannstein when the nazis blitzed france and the low countries. the invasion of a western neighbor where your southern flank attacks the enemies fortified line and draws their forces there. but it is only a feint, as your mobile forces advance to the north through 'impassable' terrain and sucker punches the enemy from behind dealing a devastating psycyhological blow and causing the collapse of the enemy's front. of course a lot of credit goes to mannstein for adapting it to 20th century warfare and even more credit for realizing that it was applicable in the first place.

[Colovion]

sound familiar to any of our military historians out there? this operational strategy is eerily similar to another campaign cunducted almost a thousand years later and with equally impressive results; operation sichelschnitt by mannstein when the nazis blitzed france and the low countries. the invasion of a western neighbor where your southern flank attacks the enemies fortified line and draws their forces there. but it is only a feint, as your mobile forces advance to the north through 'impassable' terrain and sucker punches the enemy from behind dealing a devastating psycyhological blow and causing the collapse of the enemy's front. of course a lot of credit goes to mannstein for adapting it to 20th century warfare and even more credit for realizing that it was applicable in the first place.

yep. the Mongols used it. the French chevauchee is similar. the German Blitzkrieg also pulls on the same threads. all essentially the same idea.

does anyone know of any other grand-scale use of this strategy by other cultures? ~:confused:

[peacedude]

Im going to say Alexander he may not have fought the toughest enemies but he was an utterly amazing leader of men to get his men to go as far as they did into at the time such unknown lands while pretty much constantly fighting must have taken a heck of alot of skill

[Marcellus]

My vote would probably go to Alexander (although all three were great generals). He was a great motivator of men, and charging in at the head of his army just seems so heroic... :charge:

[Steppe Merc]

Yeah, until he got to India, and everyone wanted out... ~;)

[Marcellus]

Yeah, until he got to India, and everyone wanted out... ~;)

India was a very, very long way from Macedonia. There's a limit to how far any army will go, even one led by Alexander.

[The Wizard]

It would seem supremely frustrating, certainly to such a passionate man as Alexander, when there's a kingdom on the verge of implosion just ahead and your men decide they don't want to go through with the easy march over the plain of the Ganges river.



~Wiz

[King of Atlantis]

Alexander is the best.

He just conquered so much in so little time. :charge:

[L4SH3R]

alexander overcame the greatest feat, genghis verywell might of conquered all of eurasia had time permitted it, largest empire goes 2 him, & napoleon's 2nd reich impressive but defeat still ended that dream!

1-Genghis Khan (dawn of modern mobile warfare)
2-Alexander (10-1 odds? more myth than legend perhaps)
3-Napoleon (utterly defeated, but credit him 4 his lack of height)

[King of Atlantis]

Welcome to the org L4SH3R! ~:cheers:

napolean was defeated so he must be left out.

Was genghis ever defeated? cause if he was then alexande has to be better.

[The Wizard]

Temüchin suffered setbacks against other Mongolian chieftains before he became Chingis Khan.

Meanwhile, Alexander suffered similar (ultimately minor) setbacks in Arachosia against Skythians (possibly Massagetae or otherwise Dahae).



~Wiz

[Advo-san]

Alexander, because

All the Great Khan ever wanted was "raze all cities to the ground so that mongolian mothers would raise proud children in a never-ending steppe".

As for Napoleon, we cannot even begin to compare him with Alexander simply because he tasted defeat, while my great Greek ancestor never knew that word.

[The Wizard]

Reread my post, and remember the disaster in the Makran. It is a miracle that that huge failure did not destroy his reputation amongst his peers. If it was not for the chance arrival of the fleet, he and all his hetairoi and other peers would have died in the dunes of Makran.

Who knows how enormous the catastrophe would have been had he lived to realize his plans to invade Arabia?



~Wiz

[Colovion]

Alexander, because

All the Great Khan ever wanted was "raze all cities to the ground so that mongolian mothers would raise proud children in a never-ending steppe".



Only at the beginning of his campaigns. He was shown what a conquered and nurtured province can do for him by his Chinese advisor and he changed his ways.

[King of Atlantis]

Who knows how enormous the catastrophe would have been had he lived to realize his plans to invade Arabia?


He would have crushed those arabs. Then we might of had peace in the middle east.

[Colovion]

He would have crushed those arabs. Then we might of had peace in the middle east.

haha, except he already had gone through the middle east. heck, he fell in love with Babylon. Arabia would have destroyed his armies just from the weather alone. Well... unless back in those days Arabia was lush and fertile - but I don't think so.

[doc_bean]

The Great Khan,

Alexander was a great commander and conquerer, but he just marched his gigantic and well trained (and inherited) army along the roads of Persia and conquered whichever city he encountered. He barely had an empire, it was already crumbling when he died.

I think Napoleon is a bit underrated here, yes he got arrogant and made some big mistakes, but he was a great commander and a great tactician. He fought larger armies without having a technology advantage.

But the Khan, he took a bunch of nomads and used them to build an army that conquered pretty much the whole know world. Alexander's empire was small in comparison. It was pretty much all of modern day Russia and all of modern day China, two of the biggest countries in the world.

[The Wizard]

No, Chingis Khan's empire did not include China -- only the Jin empire of the north.

A map of Chingis' approximate holdings when he died:

http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/ae_mapex_1227.jpg

You see that little swath of grey to the west, leading to Greece? That was Alexander's empire; well, most of it.



~Wiz

[Marquis of Roland]

Ghengis Khan.

As mentioned before, he fought against arguably every kind of major military system at the time and won out.

For those enemies that were unfamiliar with mongol tactics, the victories were complete. The use of the mangudai tactic fooled the the muslims and christians time and again, and the result was usually a massacre.

As for the Chinese, who knew the tactics of the steppe horsemen like the back of their hand, it was obviously more difficult for the mongols to subjugate China, esp. since any one of the Chinese states at the time could easily muster armies of hundreds of thousands of men, as easily as a European kingdom could muster an army of thousands. The extensive use of archery by the Chinese probably further exacerbated the tactical situation for the mongols. Plus Chinese military tactics at the time were probably more complex and intricate than those of the Western powers. But China as a whole indeed did collapse eventually (though it took more time to conquer China than it did to conquer all the lands from Mongolia to Hungary; this should be a testament of how good the Chinese were at the time!).

In comparison the tactics of the mongols indeed seemed simple as a barbarian could be, but it was this simplicity and the discipline of the mongol horsemen that proved invincible to anyone not used to the dizzying speed at which a battle is executed by the mongols.

Ghengis Khan however should only be credited for the brilliant strategic moves he made, esp. against Khwaresm. In a campaign in which he was outnumbered on total probably 3 or 4 to 1, he never let himself be outnumbered locally. Facing some of the best of European chivalry was easier for him, as the chivalric pride of the knights played right into his hands in using Mangudai.

Also, Ghengis Khan never fought a battle on ground that he did not choose. This is a testament to his superior generalship, and a testament to the incredible capabilities of the mongol cavalry armies. His enemies were always where he wanted them, in a bad position.

And the massacre of innocent people have nothing to do with how skilled or great a general was, only that he was a "bad" person. ~:cheers:

[PittBull260]

No, Chingis Khan's empire did not include China -- only the Jin empire of the north.

A map of Chingis' approximate holdings when he died:

http://www.allempires.com/empires/mongol/ae_mapex_1227.jpg

You see that little swath of grey to the west, leading to Greece? That was Alexander's empire; well, most of it.



~Wiz
here, the red spot shows alexander's empire when HE died :)
i don't know if u can see the diference ;)
https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y22/DEADLIFT/alexandersux.jpg

[PittBull260]

and here's a map of the mongol empire when it was the biggest.

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/img18.gif

[caesar44]

Don't forget , to rule an empire that 50% to 80% of it is a wilderness , it's not the same as to rule an empire in Europe !!
to rule an empire of European cities in the 12 century it's not the same as to rule an empire of central Asian tribes
Temuchin's empire was big , but most of it was empty land , never the less , he was great ! (bty , Timur's empire was the biggest ever)
:book:

[The Wizard]

Timur's empire was nominally big, and in that nominal sense only somewhat larger than Alexander's empire. Since Alexander's empire fits into Chingis' about four to five times, Timur's empire was not the biggest ever. I won't even start about his real empire, as in the part which he controlled directly, which was really only Transoxania and eastern Iran.



~Wiz

[caesar44]

Timur's empire was nominally big, and in that nominal sense only somewhat larger than Alexander's empire. Since Alexander's empire fits into Chingis' about four to five times, Timur's empire was not the biggest ever. I won't even start about his real empire, as in the part which he controlled directly, which was really only Transoxania and eastern Iran.



~Wiz
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_dominions.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire

The biggest !

[PittBull260]

i read somewhere, that Timur might have been a better strategist than genghis, hard to believe tho

[Orda Khan]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_dominions.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire

The biggest !

Take a look at that map again Caesar44. That shaded area is the approximate extent of Timur's empire. The red border is the extent of the Mongol empire.
Wiz is correct....and he is also correct when he mentions direct control. Timur was forever going over 'old ground' due to his inability to rule

.......Orda

[The Wizard]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Mongol_dominions.jpg
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire

The biggest !

That map shows, bordered in red, the maximum extent of the Mongol Empire. Shaded in dark grey is the maximum extent of Timur's nominal dominions, which fit snugly into the Il-Khanate -- not to mention the entire Mongol Empire (although by the time of the formation of the Il-Khanate the empire was no longer a homogenous whole).



~Wiz

[Steppe Merc]

Timur had difficulty with keeping places in line. He was constantly fighting the same place over and over again, often with the same person.

[caesar44]

After Temuchin's dead , there was no "mongol empire" ever , "just" several orda's , who fought themselves for centuries
Timor's empire was united under him (for a short time) , and as such , was bigger than any separated orda , I may be wrong for some skm ~;)

[hokagenaruto3]

I guys I'm new here. ~D

Anyway, didn't Alexander buy off a lot of peoples and armies? I read he bribed his way through what is now Afghanistan to get through the mountainous passes.

And referring to the united tribes as "a band of steppe nomads" is really underestimating and biased. I see that especially by our Greek friends in this forum. :duel:

I read alot about their lifestyles and mastering the composite bow is something that takes a lifetime (and a lifestyle) to achieve. An average person can only shoot it about three times before exhaustion, but those steppe peoples could do it a lot more than that.
Their lifestyles enabled them to gain strenght and skill. Mongols and Turkic peoples always had a wrestling style sport which was a part of their life.
If you unite that kind of people, you've got a serious force.
The largest empires were the Gokturks (sp?), Golden Horde and Timucin.

BTW: One of the first words Ghengiz Khan said was "I'm going to revive the Gokturk army"
Can anyone post a pic of that empire (Gokturks)? I'm just curious.

[Orda Khan]

But by that very remark you have to concede that Chingis ruled a larger empire ( forget the contentious issue of Mongol empire which I myself have tried to steer others away from )
In actual fact the Mongol Empire, as a unified entity, continued for quite some time after Chingis. Ogodei, Guyuk and Mangu were all Khans of a unified empire ( regardless of the purges at the start of Mangu's reign ) It is merely the 'feeling' of unity that was lacking and this is something I have touched upon in some of the many Mongol threads over the years.
It took two years for Ogodei to be enthroned and there is substantial evidence that the reason was Tolui's reluctance to accept his brother's appointment. Likewise, there was manipulation before Guyuk took his place. After his very short reign, Mangu was eventually chosen amidst an extensive purge ( instigated by Batu, who was by this time the most powerful of the Mongol Princes ) of the house of Ogodei and their supporters from the house of Chagatai. Internicine strife or not, each of these was Supreme ruler. I strongly suggest reading 'Qaidu and the Rise of the Independent Mongol State in Central Asia'. This book, more than any other that I have read, paints the clearest picture of the state of the Mongol empire at this time.

One thing that can be catagorically stated though, is that Timur's empire was a mere small holding compared to that of Chingis Khan

.......Orda

[hokagenaruto3]

Weren't Chinese spies responsible for creating internal fights amoungst themselves? I believe they also did that against the gokturks. ~:confused:

[Orda Khan]

Hi Hokagenaruto3......and welcome to the Org. ( and to the Monastery, which is the nicest place IMO )

The statement you quote is one that, I must admit, I have no knowledge of. The Gokturk empire was focused more centrally in Asia. I am sorry I do not have a useful link........I bet there are others here with more knowledge about the Gokturks than me. I am merely Mongols and Huns

......Orda

[Orda Khan]

Ghengis Khan.
As for the Chinese, who knew the tactics of the steppe horsemen like the back of their hand, it was obviously more difficult for the mongols to subjugate China, esp. since any one of the Chinese states at the time could easily muster armies of hundreds of thousands of men, as easily as a European kingdom could muster an army of thousands. The extensive use of archery by the Chinese probably further exacerbated the tactical situation for the mongols. Plus Chinese military tactics at the time were probably more complex and intricate than those of the Western powers. But China as a whole indeed did collapse eventually (though it took more time to conquer China than it did to conquer all the lands from Mongolia to Hungary; this should be a testament of how good the Chinese were at the time!).

In fairness, the Mongols had to resort to tactics that were alien to them. Their steppe warfare was of little use in the myriad waterways and sedentary environment of China, especially the south

........Orda

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=Orda Khan]Hi Hokagenaruto3......and welcome to the Org. ( and to the Monastery, which is the nicest place IMO )

Agreed ! far away from the noise in the backroom... ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

The Gok "Blue" Turks were located in Cenetral Asia. The controlled Transoxia, and I think parts of Iran, not sure of the actual land extent.
Around 520 something I think they splint into the Eastern and Western Khanates, and were less unifed, though still strong. They evauntaully fell to the Arabs, though I think the Easstern Khanate fought the Chinese for a while. The Western Turks were more traditional, while the Eastern were more influenced by the Chinese and other "civilized" people, I belive.

[Watchman]

I still keep rating Napoleon as the best of the bunch - not only because he fought almost solely opponents who used the same military "building blocks" as he did (ie. he had no marked superiority in paradigm the way Alexander had over about everyone he seriously had to fight, or how the steppe nomads by and large had over everybody until firearms came along), but also because he almost literally made all the tactical plans by his lonesome. The other two contenders had their versions of "general staff" they planned with; Napoleon had a pretty autocratic approach and mainly just handed his generals their orders after he'd though up the plans.

Not terribly professional, that, when you think about it. Anyway it kind of backfired when old Bonie's genius no longer proved to be up to the snuff...

[Marcellus]

Doesn't change the fact that he lost and died in exile.

[Watchman]

*shrug* We all die of something, don't we ? What kept him going was primarily his own comparative genius; once that fell through for assorted reasons, he had little else to fall back on unlike Genghis (who had the superb military potential of steppe nomads combined with Chinese technological and adminstrational expertise at his disposal plus a corps of topnotch generals to keep things going) or Alexander (who still just plain had better troops under his command - the phalanx gave the Romans some problems too - and managed to die off before embarassing himself overmuch).

[The Wizard]

The Kök (or Gök; the word is Old Turkic for 'blue', refers to the sky and therefore the Kök Türks are often referred to as the 'Celestial Turks') Türk empire was massive and powerful, the greatest of the steppe empires ever seen at that time.

A map of the unified (1st) Kök Türk khakhanate:

http://www.allempires.com/empires/gokturk1/map.jpg

As you can see, it was much larger than the Xiong Nu's or Timur's empire, and only Chingis' empire was as large.

First Kök Türk empire (http://www.allempires.com/empires/gokturk1/gokturk1.htm)
Second (Eastern) Kök Türk empire (http://www.allempires.com/empires/gokturk2/gokturk2_1.htm)



~Wiz

[PROMETHEUS]

NAPOLEON is the best Tactician and leader ever exhisted , Only Scipion could be second to him ,then Caesar , Gengis Khan doesn't even deserve to be mentioned as a commander , Alexander faced worthless foes mostly .... a Commander is judged also by the enemy won , not by the land conquered....

[Steppe Merc]

Gah, come on Prom. Napoleon is the one that shouldn't be on there.
Chingis united numerous different tribes to form an army when he started from nothing. Now that is a mark of a great leader.
Besides, his manuevers could never have been pulled off by any European or even Muslim army at the time, much less Romans or Napoleon. Heck Napoleon invaded Russia in the winter, and lost. Mongols invaded Russia in the winter on purpose, and won.
And Persians were hardly worthless.

[Azi Tohak]

Mmm...flaming threads...mmmm...

Anyway, I think Napoleon is the most fourth most overrated commander in all of history (behind Julius Caesar [getting lucky is not greatness] and Patton [arrogant @#&$@#*@#...I'll just stop now so I don't get reprimanded], and Montgomery [after the Patton thing, I won't say anything more]). Napoleon's greatest victories, Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstadt were jokes.

Davout won at Auerstadt by himself. It doesn't take a genius to win when you outnumber the foe 2:1 (ask Montomgery) as at Jena. Austerlitz is nice, but BFD. He galled the Russians and Austrians into attacking his right (held by who else but Davout) and then crashed through the center. And I'll never believe he was out numbered by 20,000 men. He had more troops than that (I buy 78,000 to 85,000) myself.

However, his conduct in the Po valley was impressive. I must give him credit for that. But still, on the battlefield he was no better than Montgomery. Ahhh...the mighty midget. The smartest thing he ever did was use lots of cannons all at once. Beyond that all he did was try to satisfy his megalomania. Napoleon complex anyone?

I voted for Ghengis myself. I must say I love the sheer number of spellings for his name on this board.

But personally, I think Scipio Africanus, Alexandr Suvorov, Subedei/Jebe, and Hannibal (as a leader of men) are the greatest commanders of all time, along with Alexander the Great and Ghengis. Which one is tops? Well, that depends on what you want. Ilipa, Ismail, Mohi, keeping an army together in Italy for so long, conquering the world, Indus and the conquering of the Khwarzim empire. Now THAT is greatness. Heck, I would like to see a round-robin tournement myself.

Azi

P.S. for a little more on Suvorov, here you go:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aleksandr_Suvorov
http://www.ganesha.org/hall/suvorov.html

[PROMETHEUS]

Ghengis just conquered steppes , not a big deal when u have a horse army , no cities and fairly unhabited lands .... give Gengis the task to take 1700 Europe , make all the manouvers of Napoleon and talk to his followers like him .... plus he had a magnetism on his troops that only Caesar had at his time , people would have followed them everywhere .... that is what makes a leader , not conquering amounts of vast steppes and a collapsing already from the inside China territory ....

Napoleon is undoubtely the best of all , combining in himself every aspect of the perfect General , but of course no man can win against many foes all at once ... anyway the thread and question is about field Commanders , non Leaders of tribes or populations....

[The Wizard]

No; Chingis did NOT conquer solely "empty steppe". He did not stick to Mongolia, yes? He conquered the most populous nation in the world at the time, the Khwarezm-shah Empire.

And come on! Napoleon's manouevres are nothing compared to what Chingis achieved in the Khwarezmian campaign. Heavily outnumbered, he achieved local superiority at all times, besieging cities and keeping Khwarezmian field armies completely useless. Jebe and Subedei's amazing campaign into Russia unfortunately cannot be included into Chingis's military moves, but this campaign dwarfs even Chingis' achievement in Iran and far outclasses anything Napoleon, Alexander or Caesar ever achieved.

Arguments going by the lines of "but the Mongols and Macedonians had an unfair advantage!" are null and void. It is the very fact THAT the Mongols and Macedonians had superior discipline, tactics and individual skill to each and every one of their enemies which adds to their genius. The Mongols far more so than the Macedonians, since Chingis forged out of a tribal confederacy a centrally administered state which was able to quickly raise new toumens because of a system of population headcounting that easily rivals Napoleon's own.

No, calling Mongols simple 'barbarians from the steppe who mindlessly slaughtered everyone' is simply following a very old stereotype...

Edit: The topic of this thread was originally unclear, but we discerned that it had to be about state leaders in the field.



~Wiz

[PROMETHEUS]

No; Chingis did NOT conquer solely "empty steppe". He did not stick to Mongolia, yes? He conquered the most populous nation in the world at the time, the Khwarezm-shah Empire.

And come on! Napoleon's manouevres are nothing compared to what Chingis achieved in the Khwarezmian campaign. Heavily outnumbered, he achieved local superiority at all times, besieging cities and keeping Khwarezmian field armies completely useless. Jebe and Subedei's amazing campaign into Russia unfortunately cannot be included into Chingis's military moves, but this campaign dwarfs even Chingis' achievement in Iran and far outclasses anything Napoleon, Alexander or Caesar ever achieved.

Arguments going by the lines of "but the Mongols and Macedonians had an unfair advantage!" are null and void. It is the very fact THAT the Mongols and Macedonians had superior discipline, tactics and individual skill to each and every one of their enemies which adds to their genius. The Mongols far more so than the Macedonians, since Chingis forged out of a tribal confederacy a centrally administered state which was able to quickly raise new toumens because of a system of population headcounting that easily rivals Napoleon's own.

No, calling Mongols simple 'barbarians from the steppe who mindlessly slaughtered everyone' is simply following a very old stereotype...

Edit: The topic of this thread was originally unclear, but we discerned that it had to be about state leaders in the field.



~Wiz


Who called Mongols simply BArbarinas? I didnt said any stereotype , also u can use the common name For Gengis no need to take others in the middle to show u know .... also the Steppe tactics work only on flat lands and steppes , and the conquest of the China only happened couse the china was already collapsing by the inside , it is note that the mongols where strong horseman warriors trained at higly discipline and apt to make even complicate tactics , but here we are talking of command aptitude , Napoleon is superior to everyone , Gengis cannot even be placed in the listing to me , he just conquered huge empty or already weack lands never had so many foes at the same height to defeat anyway ...

[Byzantine Prince]

I agree with Promethius. Even though you make a compelling argument about Iran Wiz, you forget that Iran is made 90% desert. And so so is what Chingis conquered, the steppe. It's all desert with few nomads and very few cities.

China was in fact being ruled very badly, so their fall was inevitable. No one is doubting that Chingis was a great commander, but nwhere near the reach Alexander or Napoleon. Alexander had 50 consecutive battles in 9 year! And lost none! We are talking about huge cities built on rugged terrain 1200 years before chigis even wet his first horse skinned nappers. ~D

[PROMETHEUS]

Of course if we talk of the most succesfull leader Gengis is at the first place , having after all ruled over a quarter of Eurasia at least , but talking of military genius , he indoubtely was , but Napoleon , Alexander , Hannibal and Scipio are att the first places , If we talk of military Charisma and tactical Campaigning plannings Caesar is the best and Napoleon follows soon after , if We talk of Tactical Innovations , Hannibal and Alexander rule there but Napoleon is always at the first place , this is why Napoleon is the best , couse he has been succesfull on severall aspect of a commander or leaderate , ....

Charisma, tactics , strategy , Willpower , anticipation , innovations, and of course sence of the field in battle , something that only Caesar had at the same level ....

few Generals can say to have had all those qualities at the same time , Napoleon in this results as the winner .....

He may have not been so succesfull as Gengis , but if was Europe a desert up to china, if he could allow to act brutal exterminations as Gengis did , actually depopulating entire lands especially china that saw his population decrease of 40 millions of people after the mongol conquest , and also if he had a lot of ununified enemies and resources..... , he would have conquered the world and probably America as well....

[Byzantine Prince]

Genghis. To say otherwise is ignorant. He rose up from a lowly tribal society, and organized it into the most efficient military machine that (in relative terms) the world has ever seen.

This is not to discount Alexander or Napoleon, but this is a no-brainer.
The counter argument would be that he was still living in a tribal society when he died, and that this "military machine" only managed to conquer places that were desert or steppe which desert with grass, lol. Compare that to what Napoleon or Alexander conqured and you get something quite more powerful.

[caesar44]

Gah, come on Prom. Napoleon is the one that shouldn't be on there.
Chingis united numerous different tribes to form an army when he started from nothing. Now that is a mark of a great leader.
Besides, his manuevers could never have been pulled off by any European or even Muslim army at the time, much less Romans or Napoleon. Heck Napoleon invaded Russia in the winter, and lost. Mongols invaded Russia in the winter on purpose, and won.
And Persians were hardly worthless.

The Russians of 1812 are not the "Russians" of ca. 1200

[caesar44]

I agree with Promethius. Even though you make a compelling argument about Iran Wiz, you forget that Iran is made 90% desert. And so so is what Chingis conquered, the steppe. It's all desert with few nomads and very few cities.

China was in fact being ruled very badly, so their fall was inevitable. No one is doubting that Chingis was a great commander, but nwhere near the reach Alexander or Napoleon. Alexander had 50 consecutive battles in 9 year! And lost none! We are talking about huge cities built on rugged terrain 1200 years before chigis even wet his first horse skinned nappers. ~D

BP , he lost it in India...

[caesar44]

Of course if we talk of the most succesfull leader Gengis is at the first place , having after all ruled over a quarter of Eurasia at least , but talking of military genius , he indoubtely was , but Napoleon , Alexander , Hannibal and Scipio are att the first places , If we talk of military Charisma and tactical Campaigning plannings Caesar is the best and Napoleon follows soon after , if We talk of Tactical Innovations , Hannibal and Alexander rule there but Napoleon is always at the first place , this is why Napoleon is the best , couse he has been succesfull on severall aspect of a commander or leaderate , ....

Charisma, tactics , strategy , Willpower , anticipation , innovations, and of course sence of the field in battle , something that only Caesar had at the same level ....

few Generals can say to have had all those qualities at the same time , Napoleon in this results as the winner .....

He may have not been so succesfull as Gengis , but if was Europe a desert up to china, if he could allow to act brutal exterminations as Gengis did , actually depopulating entire lands especially china that saw his population decrease of 40 millions of people after the mongol conquest , and also if he had a lot of ununified enemies and resources..... , he would have conquered the world and probably America as well....

I agree with your analysis about judging a man greatness with several aspects , and yes , Napoleon was a great man and Caesar to , but don't forget , a political success is also an aspect , and Napoleon...failed (in 1815)

[Revelation]

Wow, how easy it is to sit and judge with the gift of hindsight eh!
People saying Alexander did nothing special, Napoleons victories are over rated, Caesar was lucky etc......Wake up folks! All above mentioned excelled and were exceptional, which is why they feature prominantly throughout the pages of history.
Could you achieved the same results? I dare say alot of folks would run away and piss their pants and the faintest sniff of an battle, ancient or otherwise.
The great Khan, what an amazing achievement. Alexander, judge him on his merits, not his fathers. What he did was spectacular. Napoleon, a great leader of men and fine strategist. Caesar, political animal and fine military mind.
All were great men who achieved great things. Give em' a break! :bow:

[caesar44]

First we should agree about what we are talking about - "greatness" , what is it ? how can you measure it ?

So , to make our interesting job , a more Academic one , please name the main points for measuring man's greatness (military and political leaders of course) .

1. One's military success
2. One's political success
3. One's military genius
4. One's historical period , his own time political situation and limitations
5. One's starting point
6. One's enemies

I am sure there is more

In the next step , one must to rank the points above , which is more important and which is less , than , name the "candidates" (Pericles , Cyrus , Scipio Major , hanibaal , Sylla , Caesar , Alexander , Napoleon , Timur , Genghis Chan , Charlemagne , Churchill , Arnold schwarzenegger etc' etc')

Well ?

[The Wizard]

I think, if this debate is to turn into the right lane, a new thread must be started.



~Wiz

[caesar44]

[QUOTE=The Wizard]I think, if this debate is to turn into the right lane, a new thread must be started.



Please , start one !

[PROMETHEUS]

First we should agree about what we are talking about - "greatness" , what is it ? how can you measure it ?

So , to make our interesting job , a more Academic one , please name the main points for measuring man's greatness (military and political leaders of course) .

1. One's military success
2. One's political success
3. One's military genius
4. One's historical period , his own time political situation and limitations
5. One's starting point
6. One's enemies

I am sure there is more

In the next step , one must to rank the points above , which is more important and which is less , than , name the "candidates" (Pericles , Cyrus , Scipio Major , hanibaal , Sylla , Caesar , Alexander , Napoleon , Timur , Genghis Chan , Charlemagne , Churchill , Arnold schwarzenegger etc' etc')

Well ?


Swartzenegger LOL!!!

[Steppe Merc]

I agree with Promethius. Even though you make a compelling argument about Iran Wiz, you forget that Iran is made 90% desert. And so so is what Chingis conquered, the steppe. It's all desert with few nomads and very few cities.
No. It was not 90 percent desert, that is incorrect. It was not as barren as it is today back then.


The Russians of 1812 are not the "Russians" of ca. 1200
But the winter was the same, and that is what defeated Napoleon. Chingis invaded Russia in winter in order to allow greater mobility due to the frozen rivers.

[Marquis of Roland]

No. It was not 90 percent desert, that is incorrect. It was not as barren as it is today back then.


But the winter was the same, and that is what defeated Napoleon. Chingis invaded Russia in winter in order to allow greater mobility due to the frozen rivers.

I believe it was exactly the devastation caused by the Mongols that had a large part in turning the Iran region into the desert it is today.

And coming from near Siberia the Mongols were probably better acclimated to the cold than the French. The Mongols always seem to turn the enemy's advantages into disadvantages.

[Gregoshi]

The "greatest" leader/commander is a personal decision as is determining which criteria are most important for a great leader. The other influencing factor is how well read we are on these commanders. How many of us are equally knowledgable about all three of these great leaders? Then there is the small matter of trying to compare individuals from different eras facing different situations. The fact is there is no right or wrong answer to the question posed in this thread. It is simply a fun little historical exercise. Let's not lose sight of the "fun" aspect of this.

[Steppe Merc]

Well the steppe is certaintly harsh in the winter.

I've head the whole thing about Mongols turning Iran into desert, though I'm hesitant to agree since I've never really seen any good proof. But certaintly Iran was a very good farming land, and very rich, especially before Alexander came. But I'm pretty sure it was still fertile during the 1200s.

[Byzantine Prince]

BP , he lost it in India...
Who said that? That's a maliscious lie. Alexander didn't lose in India. He had losses there because his army was exhausted and the jungle was causing desease. Alexander never lost unlike Napoleon.

[Steppe Merc]

He lost control of his army. And I'm pretty sure he got very weird after his friend (what's his name...) died.

[Orda Khan]

......I think we should all accept ( before this thread is reduced to flames. There is no need to criticise a person for saying Chingis. There is no point in going into the reason his name is mis spelt as Ghengis.) ..that people have their 'dyed in the wool' opinions. There is a poll and it would appear there is a clear leader ( pardon the pun )

What does this poll prove? Nothing. For who are we?

The fun is in the debate but when debate starts to get heated, the fun quickly disappears

....Orda

[The Wizard]

I believe it was exactly the devastation caused by the Mongols that had a large part in turning the Iran region into the desert it is today.

And coming from near Siberia the Mongols were probably better acclimated to the cold than the French. The Mongols always seem to turn the enemy's advantages into disadvantages.

Wait, wait -- Iran is a desert? I think some people here need to take a good look at the map again. Iran is not in the Arabian peninsula and is not populated by Arabs, yes? Iran is 60-70% mountains, and very well forested. You are misguided. The only deserts to be found in Iran are the border with Irak, the border with Turkmenistan, and the Makran desert on the Persian Gulf.

And this is supposed to discredit the Mongols, or am I misinterpreting you here? The very fact makes them superior to Napoleon's French. And to Alexander's army, of which the elite almost all died in the Makran due to their leader's crazy ambitions.



~Wiz

[Byzantine Prince]

Wizard Iran IS mostly desert. The only place that is somewhat forested is the Elburz mountains near Tehran some of the Zagros. The entire center and east is completely deserted. Even Alexanders trrops died crossing is in the return. I'm talking about the area called Baluchistan.

And it does somewhat take away from what Genghis did considering most of the people in the Empire didn't live in the places he conquered.

[Steppe Merc]

No, it isn't. Deserts don't have good farm land and aren't rich lands, while Iran was very rich and fertile.
Besides, few armies before a hundred years ago operated in true desert.

[Marquis of Roland]

Wait, wait -- Iran is a desert? I think some people here need to take a good look at the map again. Iran is not in the Arabian peninsula and is not populated by Arabs, yes? Iran is 60-70% mountains, and very well forested. You are misguided. The only deserts to be found in Iran are the border with Irak, the border with Turkmenistan, and the Makran desert on the Persian Gulf.

And this is supposed to discredit the Mongols, or am I misinterpreting you here? The very fact makes them superior to Napoleon's French. And to Alexander's army, of which the elite almost all died in the Makran due to their leader's crazy ambitions.



~Wiz

Not really, I was just stating some facts/observations.......don't really know where I'm going with this myself actually ~:cheers:

[King of Atlantis]

BP , he lost it in India...

When? He took heavy casualties, and hurt himself bad, but he still "WON".

[Steppe Merc]

But he had to turn back, correct? Didn't his troops rebel against him?

[Marcellus]

But he had to turn back, correct? Didn't his troops rebel against him?

Well, sort of. They refused to go on. But remember that at this point the Macedonian soldiers were thousands of miles away from their homes and families. Alexander had managed to persuade his soldiers to go on when they wanted to turn back many times before India. India was simply too far away from Macedon. I don't think that any general of that time could have made his soldiers march on at that point, and only Alexander could have persuaded them to go as far as they did.

Alexander is the best ~:)

(although Napoleon and Genghis Khan weren't exactly bad generals, either. Why wasn't Caesar one of the options?)

[King of Atlantis]

But he had to turn back, correct? Didn't his troops rebel against him?

Sure he had to turn back, but that doesnt mean he lost a battle. His soldiers had gone father away from greece than probably anybody before them. Nobody can keep going to battle forever. plus alexander suffered a wound that would lead to his death.

[Steppe Merc]

But isn't a mark of a general about their troops loyalty? Not that Alex didn't inspire loyalty, but didn't he make some foolish dessisions regarding the troops and their morality, in particular favoring Persian culture, or something like that? Not that I blame him, but he should lose some points due to his troops mutiny.

[Marcellus]

A mark of a good general is the ability to win battles and conquer land, things which Alexander did incredibly well. As I said, no general could have made his soldiers fight on as far away from their homes as Alexander did.

[King of Atlantis]

As Marcellus said, no general in that situation could have made their troops move on. Greeks were fiercely indepndent at the time and NOBODY could have made them go on. If anybody could have done it, it would have been alexander, but he was in a horrible state at the time. He had suffered a horrible injury(that would have probably killed most men) and his good "freind" had died.

[Steppe Merc]

Mmm. Well, I don't think anyone can deffinitely say if no other general could get there troops to move on.
And yes, that was a weakness, the Greeks independence. Which is why it was smart that he started incorporating the Persians and other Easterners in his army, IMO.

[King of Atlantis]

I cant definatly say it, but i believe. And now you pointed out another great ablility of him.

For people saing he just inherited an awesome army and that it, you guys are complely wrong. Sure he did inherit an awesome army, but he used it to its fullest extent and always exploited his enemies weaknesses. Just because one has the macedonian phanlanx pikeman and companion cavalry doesnt mean you will win battles. Alexander's succesors proved that there were many weaknesses to the system, but they never showed when used by alexander.

[Steppe Merc]

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't he use more cavalry, lighter armies during his Afghanistan and surrounding area campaigns? And didn't he lose some against the Scythian nomads? Sorry, I mainly only know about his Persian campaigns, and a bit about his Indian campaign.
Don't get me wrong, I hardly think that Alexander was a slouch, I think he was a great general, especially for his use of cavalry, which other Greeks didn't know how to use (well except for Thessalians).

[King of Atlantis]

Don't get me wrong, I hardly think that Alexander was a slouch, I think he was a great general, especially for his use of cavalry, which other Greeks didn't know how to use (well except for Thessalians).

My comment was more aimed at some others who say alexander simply inherited his army.

He might have lost, but from what i have heard he never lost, but i could be wrong.

[King of Atlantis]

But Alexander did not do much in the way of innovation, and was far too impulsive.


Being impulsive was one of his greatest qualities. He always did exactly opposite of what other generals though he would do, which made them always make some kind of mistake.


His greatest innovative feat was the causeway to reach Tyre.. and one could say that was a bit of a blunt tactic.

It showed just how much determination he had.

[Byzantine Prince]

Umm Steppe Merc I don't get what your point is.
Yes some of his troops were against him in the mid-campaign. They were murdered.
Yes some of his troops wanted to turn back because of exahustion and the fact that they were scared of the Indian lands. They wre made to walk on anyhow.

It is only he encountered heavy losses(in troops) in India that Alexander decided to turn back. He never lost a battle, you could at least admit that Steppe, because I don't follow what your point is.

[Azi Tohak]

I agree with Orda.

But then, this is rather entertaining. But I would like a poll to list more people myself.

Azi

[King of Atlantis]

Who would you think is better than the three listed?

[PROMETHEUS]

not that there is someone better , but in the list there is someone that doesnt deserve to be there in my opinion , like Gengis Khan but if so then the list should include many more.... more important and great Generals could be included .... Hannibal , Scipion , Richard Lionheart , Saladin, Nobunaga, Trajan , Caesar , Arminius , Viriato , Vercingetorix , Sertorius , Surena , Germanicus , etc etc ....

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

Who was the greatest general?
I don't know why it is discussed. It's obvious!
Alexandros o Megas!!! :charge: ~D
~:cheers:

[caesar44]

Who would you think is better than the three listed?


Caesar

Please don't be angry , it is just an opinion (worked on it some 10 years of reading) , and I have posted the reasons above
:book:

[Steppe Merc]

Umm Steppe Merc I don't get what your point is.
Yes some of his troops were against him in the mid-campaign. They were murdered.
Yes some of his troops wanted to turn back because of exahustion and the fact that they were scared of the Indian lands. They wre made to walk on anyhow.

It is only he encountered heavy losses(in troops) in India that Alexander decided to turn back. He never lost a battle, you could at least admit that Steppe, because I don't follow what your point is.
A mutiny is not exactly a plus on his record, nor is the fact that he had to turn back due to losses. A loss is still a loss, even though you might not have lost a battle, if you turn back, it's still a loss.
And what about his campaigns agains the Sakae (possibly, not sure)? I could have sworn he lost against them...

Prom, I know you like your Romans, but they couldn't have dreamed about doing the stuff Chingis did. They were too slow and plodding, and they could never have done the Khawarizm campaign. He was a great general, who used far superior tactics to everyone else, before or after.

[JAG]

Deary me - Napoleon is so under rated. The biggest empire in terms of Europe, ever with troops of very similar quality and being outnumbered both on battles and campaigns.... Yet no big vote for him. Ah well. :book:

[caesar44]

Oy.. Ceasar. Man was he a piece of work. I can't think of one better example of a General who had it all handed to him. Even in the Battle of Pharsalus, it was mostly a series of miscommunications, and the sheer experience of his legions that won the day.

The man did great things, of that there can be no doubt. He left his mark fair and square. But he was not a good general when compared to the greats.


You can be lucky one's , maybe twice , but forever ?

[PROMETHEUS]

Ok lets report the opinion of a real historian , and opinion of the many academicals ....


About great Generals....


Even to the profane as to the expert the first names that we recognize when speacking of great
Conquerors ....

are the ones of
Alexander the great , Napoleon, Gengiz Khan , Attila , Julius Caesar


We recognize...when we speack of
great Generals

Alexander the Great , Napoleon , Scipion the African , Hannibal and Julius Caesar ...

We must elencate When we talk about
Tactician

Scipion , Hannibal , Napoleon , Alexander

When we instead talk about
Strategist

Napoleon , Alexander , Caesar , Scipion

And also we recognize as
innovators
Caius Marius ,Philippus , Gengiz Khan , Scipion , Napoleon


We recognize as instead
Ubeated leaders on field
Alexander the great , Duke of Malborough , Scipion the African


As someone who
Ever winning leaders in wars
Caesar , Alexander , Scipion

As charismatic Leader that go the power of having his men voted to him up the end ...Blind faith in the leader , quality of a true
Commander of troops

Caesar , Napoleon ....




From Andrea Fedrian



Now we can all take our conclusions ....

[Marcellus]

Well...

Alexander was in 6 of the 8 categories
Napoleon was also in 6 out of 8
Genghis Kahn was in 2 of the 8.

So based only on these eight categories, Alexander and Napoleon win.

But Napoleon lost his war, and I'm not prepared to call someone who lost the war he was fighting the greatest general in history.

So it's Alexander then ~D

[caesar44]

Never heard about this historian , never the less , Caesar got 5 "points" and he is not in the poll , Temuchin (I like to call him like that) got 2 "points" only and he is leading in the poll................................................... :book:

[caesar44]

It would not be the first time. Being assasinated is hardly lucky, however. :book:


Huh ??
Phirhus was killed by a jug on his head , so ? Hanibaal said that he was the second General ever (until hes times)
Remember Kennedy , Ghandi , King , Rabin , Lenon and on and on - the fact that all of them were assassinated makes them what ? so now you are saying that Caesar was not lucky ? please choose an argument... ~;)

[caesar44]

One could argue that Pyrrhus was considered in such high esteem by Hannibal largely because of Pyrrhus' own war with the Romans.

But, to be honest, I couldn't tell you much about Pyrrhus other than that he had Strategic ADD. I don't know why he is considered so great.

I agree with you on that , never understood why Phirhus was or is , considered so a great , maybe someone know's the unswear ?

"Another victory like that and we are lost" (Phirhus of Epirus)

[caesar44]

*edit*

And, yeah, being assasinated is general not considered lucky. That doesn't diminish ceasar's greatness at all.

I've not said Ceasar was not worthy of being called Great. But I find it ridiculous to call him a master tactician. His battles were won by his ambition and charisma, and his experienced legions. The Legions' very organization was a fail-safe against bad Generals, as they mostly came from the aristocracy.

Ceasar is great because he was the beginning of the end for the Republic, and he masterfully manipulated the world to do his bidding--up until the assasination, anyway. He is not Great because of his skill as a general.


There is only one objective system of measuring one's battle skills - his success !.......so simple ! even when he had setbacks , he always , that is , always , got the upper hand - always !
Btw , all ancient historians said that Caesar knew about the plot against him and did not care (I am sure you have read it) :book:

[PyrrhusofEpirus]

Phirhus was killed by a jug on his head caesar44, please do NOT misspell my name! This is a King's warning! :furious3: If you don't comply with, I will throw to you a roofing tile!!!
~D ~;)

[Steppe Merc]

I did hear that Caesar allowed himself to be assassinated, in order to live on forever, and to not fade away due to his epilepsy (I think that's what he had).

And Prom, I'd have to disagree with that. First of all, it's way to Medditeranean centric. And I don't see Caesar as a great conquerer. Perhaps a good leader, but when you compare him to Timur (where the hell was he? Sure he was a bit haphazard, but he was a great conquerer) and Chingis, he can't stand up.
Hannibal I can see being on there. But none of them could pull off the incredibely complicated feats that Chingis did.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Out of those 3, the Khan. But of all time, it would be a close call between Frederick the Great, Otto the Great, Ghengis Khan, and Subodai Bahadur.

[caesar44]

caesar44, please do NOT misspell my name! This is a King's warning! :furious3: If you don't comply with, I will throw to you a roofing tile!!!
~D ~;)

THAT IS , PYRRHUS

[caesar44]

If we went by the rule of "Success in the end makes a good general." then we'd have a very skewed system. George Washington for example.. terrible general, but a great leader of men. He won, so does that change the fact that he wasn't a good general? Not really.


Please measure Caesar on every aspect -
1. Tactic
2. Strategy
3. political ability
4. Luck
5. Success
6. Leadership
7. Popularity
8. Ambition
9. Determination
10. Perspective - you know , he visited some temple of Alexander the great , then he came out to his soldiers with tears , they asked him why he cries , Caesar said , "I am nearly 40 years old , what have I achieved compare to him when he was 33" , 15 years afterwards , Caesar was the first man ever to control the land from the Atlantic to the Euphrates (he took the empire , not received it like the emperors in later times) .
Now , remember , in the first 2 month of 44ce , Caesar planed his campaigns against the Gaetae and against the Parthians....but alas , the rest is history , he was so arrogant and I belive he wanted to die as he did (he entered the senate with out bodyguard , knowing about the plot)

[King of Atlantis]

A mutiny is not exactly a plus on his record, nor is the fact that he had to turn back due to losses. A loss is still a loss, even though you might not have lost a battle, if you turn back, it's still a loss.

What do you want him to do, conquer the whole world, everybody has to turn back sometime.


And what about his campaigns agains the Sakae (possibly, not sure)? I could have sworn he lost against them...

dont know, if you could provide a link.


prom, cool source, but i think alexander should have gotten commander of troops. That was one of the things he was best at.

The only thing he really laked was innovation, but that could possibly be because he didnt have to, his father had taken care of that for him.

[Steppe Merc]

I don't have a link, that's my problem. ~;)


Now , remember , in the first 2 month of 44ce , Caesar planed his campaigns against the Gaetae and against the Parthians....but alas , the rest is history , he was so arrogant and I belive he wanted to die as he did (he entered the senate with out bodyguard , knowing about the plot)
The Gaetae are who, just out of curosity? And he might have done decently against the Parthians, though I think most of Rome's victories came after the Parthians decline.

[caesar44]

1- Ceasar was a sound tactician, but he was not spectacular. Above average, but not a Tactician on level of Napoleon or Genghis.

2. Ceasar was definately of sound strategic mind. Of that there is little doubt.

3. Same as #2.

4.I don't think there's any doubt he was a fairly lucky man. He was able to get his hands on veteran legions--without which, he wouldnt have succeeded in either taking Gaul or beating Pompey.

5. Success. This is a mixed bag, he achieved his short-term goals, but I'd wager the man wanted to live a little longer. That said, he paved the way for the empire, and that's no small feat.

6. Leadership was his greatest tactical asset. While he was not exactly a spectacular general in the technical sense, he didn't need to be. All he had to do was impress his legions, and they'd do the rest--and he certainyl succeeded at that.

7. Ceasar was fairly popular, largely due to the false image of his campaigns he'd been sending the Senate.

8. Ambitioin is his largest personality trait. He wanted to be Alexander the Great.

9. I prefer to call it being stubborn, but he had plenty of it.

10. Perspective? I think Ceasar's perspective was a quest of power. He wasn't a hero, and certainly not what you'd call a "Kind" man. He wanted power, and he got it.

So i'll repeat myself again: Ceasar can be ranked among the greats, for the same reason as Alexander the Great: Accomplishments and Cultural Impact. They were both great leaders of men, with great armies that neither of them helped create. Ambition coupled with Charisma allowed both men to do great things, but neither of them were particularly amazing tacticians. Alexander, for example, was known to get a little carried away in battle, leaving the troops to their fate--luckily, he had some damned fine troops, and all that getting carried away was seen by the troops as personal bravery, which inspired them. Ceasar learned from this, and often went into the fray himself to inspire his troops, which it did.


We are almost in agreement (about 92.158%) about the man ~:cheers:

[caesar44]

I don't have a link, that's my problem. ~;)


The Gaetae are who, just out of curosity? And he might have done decently against the Parthians, though I think most of Rome's victories came after the Parthians decline.


Sorry , That is Gatae , a name for a Dacian tribe in the first century bce


Centered in what is now modern Romania (especially the region of Transylvania), Dacia was a prosperous nation tracing its roots to the 7th century BC, whose mixed tribal populace was comprised of northern Thracians (Greek "Gatae" or Roman "Das"), Germanic and Celtic tribes and settled nomadic horsemen such as the Skythians and Sarmatians. Unlike their neighbors to the north, the Dacians (Geto-Dacians) evolved a well-organized society centered around defensive strongholds (oppida), which quickly evolved into walled cities such as their capital Sarmizegethusa. A well established trade was conducted with Rome in wine, gold and silver work, pottery, and iron tools and weapons of high quality. Although known as farmers and traders, they acquired a reputation as fierce warriors under the leadership of the Dacian King Burebista and later under King Decebalus during his nearly 20 years of almost continuous conflict with Imperial Rome.

[Steppe Merc]

Thank you. :bow:

[Ricdog]

Gah, come on Prom. Napoleon is the one that shouldn't be on there.
Chingis united numerous different tribes to form an army when he started from nothing. Now that is a mark of a great leader.
Besides, his manuevers could never have been pulled off by any European or even Muslim army at the time, much less Romans or Napoleon. Heck Napoleon invaded Russia in the winter, and lost. Mongols invaded Russia in the winter on purpose, and won.
And Persians were hardly worthless.

Oh thats bull! Khan aint got nothing on Napoleon or Caesar. Not only were both great administrators but military geniuses aswell (more so than Khan or Alexander).

And why would Napoleon pull of Khan's manuevers? It is Khan that can't compete with what Napoleon did with an INFANTRY army (much harder to manuever than those of pure cavalry). The way Napoleon moved his armies in amazing co-ordination in Italy outshine that of Khan's.

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

And ofcourse Caesar moved his legions into Italy with such speed that had virtually been unheard of by a Roman army.

[Ricdog]

No; Chingis did NOT conquer solely "empty steppe". He did not stick to Mongolia, yes? He conquered the most populous nation in the world at the time, the Khwarezm-shah Empire.

And come on! Napoleon's manouevres are nothing compared to what Chingis achieved in the Khwarezmian campaign. Heavily outnumbered, he achieved local superiority at all times, besieging cities and keeping Khwarezmian field armies completely useless. Jebe and Subedei's amazing campaign into Russia unfortunately cannot be included into Chingis's military moves, but this campaign dwarfs even Chingis' achievement in Iran and far outclasses anything Napoleon, Alexander or Caesar ever achieved.

Arguments going by the lines of "but the Mongols and Macedonians had an unfair advantage!" are null and void. It is the very fact THAT the Mongols and Macedonians had superior discipline, tactics and individual skill to each and every one of their enemies which adds to their genius. The Mongols far more so than the Macedonians, since Chingis forged out of a tribal confederacy a centrally administered state which was able to quickly raise new toumens because of a system of population headcounting that easily rivals Napoleon's own.

No, calling Mongols simple 'barbarians from the steppe who mindlessly slaughtered everyone' is simply following a very old stereotype...

Edit: The topic of this thread was originally unclear, but we discerned that it had to be about state leaders in the field.



~Wiz

OMG, LOOOOOOL!!!!!

Seriously claiming that Khan's or Subotai's manuevers were better than Napoleon and Caesar is an insult to logistics. Napoleon or Caesar single handedly have better achievements than all the famous Mongol commander's combined.

Subotai's invasion of Europe and Khan's one of the Middle East are greatly successful, but not above (probubly equal) than what Napoleon did at the beginning of his career in Italy. But that is also nothing to what he achieved later:

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

And lets not forget Caesar's equally impressive assault on Spain:

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

[sulla1982ad]

Ok lets report the opinion of a real historian , and opinion of the many academicals ....


From Andrea Fedrian



Now we can all take our conclusions ....

My conclusion is that report is eurocentric. Also why fetishise what historians think? A lot of so called respectable academics are full of it.

[sulla1982ad]

Ok lets report the opinion of a real historian , and opinion of the many academicals ....


From Andrea Fedrian



Now we can all take our conclusions ....

My conclusion is that report is eurocentric. Also why fetishise what historians think? A lot of so called respectable academics are full of it.

[Centurion1]

OMG, LOOOOOOL!!!!!

Seriously claiming that Khan's or Subotai's manuevers were better than Napoleon and Caesar is an insult to logistics. Napoleon or Caesar single handedly have better achievements than all the famous Mongol commander's combined.

Subotai's invasion of Europe and Khan's one of the Middle East are greatly successful, but not above (probubly equal) than what Napoleon did at the beginning of his career in Italy. But that is also nothing to what he achieved later:

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

And lets not forget Caesar's equally impressive assault on Spain:

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

Lol, Caesar conquered some barbarians with the most advanced army the world had seen to date and beat some old windbags with green legions. Khan conquered the most technologically advanced empires in his time. China, Persia, Khwarazim, the Russians, hell the man would have kept conquering in Europe if he had seen any value in the place.

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.

[White_eyes:D]

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.
+1 The saying "Never fight a land war in Russia" comes to mind, yet Genghis Khan defyed that.

[ArcturUs]

+1 The saying "Never fight a land war in Russia" comes to mind, yet Genghis Khan defyed that.

I think that saying was for the Western Europeans, as they were unable to bear the harsh weather of Russia. Hitler tried to prove Napoleon wrong by invading Russia, but then that became his worst strategic mistake ever.

As far as Genghis Khan is concerned, most of his success if not all were because of his faith in his Generals. And they rightly gave him the success he wanted. Take Subutai for example, he was the son of a blacksmith, yet he was made a general and given one of the highest positions in the Mongol Military. And he exactly delivered what was asked of him. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart. (source: Wikipedia) :book:

[White_eyes:D]

I think that saying was for the Western Europeans, as they were unable to bear the harsh weather of Russia. Hitler tried to prove Napoleon wrong by invading Russia, but then that became his worst strategic mistake ever. True, but the Mongols were not exactly immune to the cold either.:laugh4:

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Napoleon and Genghis Khan

[Skullheadhq]

Why can't I vote Belisarius?

[sulla1982ad]

Khan used to be the best of all time. Then he was defeated by Capitan Kirk in Star Trek 2, hard to take him seriously any more after that! :P

[lolpah]

Remember that Genghis had an awesome nomad army which could, if well led, easily pwn any other contemporary army. Genghis was a good commander no doubt, but his achievements must be put on perspective.

Napoleon, on the other hand, suffered reverses and was ultimately defeated, though we should remember that commanders were likely generally better at that time due to military academies and professional armies.

Alexander conquered the Persian empire, but Greeks had defeated Persians before and Alexander had a good and a well-balanced army. He didn't show any huge tactical skill, but he wasn't bad either, and we really don't know that much.

Genghis conquered the most territory, though Alexander perhaps conquered more in relation to time he spent conquering - He, after all, died before his 33th birthday.

[Centurion1]

LOL. Khan made that awesome nomad army what it was before it was nothing more than chinas pest. then it became the worlds scourge. Not to mention he came from literally nothing he was less than nothing in fact he lived off rats growing up he had no tribe no clan. Napoleon had a commission in the army, caesar was a prominent family, alexander inherited his damn army.

also alexander certainly did show tremendous tactical acumen. defeating the persians and conquering them on land their troops are actually designed to fight in are radically different things

[lolpah]

LOL. Khan made that awesome nomad army what it was before it was nothing more than chinas pest. then it became the worlds scourge. Not to mention he came from literally nothing he was less than nothing in fact he lived off rats growing up he had no tribe no clan. Napoleon had a commission in the army, caesar was a prominent family, alexander inherited his damn army.

also alexander certainly did show tremendous tactical acumen. defeating the persians and conquering them on land their troops are actually designed to fight in are radically different things
Well, you are probably correct about Alexander, but about Genghis, remember that nomads have always managed to destroy badly led infantry armies, and while Genghis undeniably made then even more fatal and disciplined, they were better even to begin with. Also, nomad life favoured skilled but poor individuals more than settled societies, because one needed more skills to live in the steppe.

Also remember that the opponets Genghis face were weaker. Jin dynasty army was innefficient, and the army of Genghis, though outnumbered, was more manouverable than Alexander's army related to Persian army. The enemies Genghis faced after them were either outnumbered, inefficient, or dispersed and lacking strong leadership as in case of Khwarezm.

In contrast, the enemies Napoleon faced had professional armies with little more competent leaderships, and he had no maneuver advantage or at least not as great as Genghis had in relation to his enemies, as is the case also with Alexander.

[Ricdog]

Easy, Napoleon is leauges ahead of Khan or Alexander.

The other 2 may have been more successful in terms of conquering but Napoleon far beyond in terms of skills and tactical genius. Although Alexander and Khan had good victories in Persia, it really doesn't compare to Napoleon's feats in Ulm, Marengo, Austerlitz, etc....
Heck even in terms of opposition Napoleon is ahead. Theres not a single commander that Alexander or Khan faced that could be considered as good as likes of Archduke Charles, Wellington, Nelson, etc...

[Ricdog]

Lol, Caesar conquered some barbarians with the most advanced army the world had seen to date and beat some old windbags with green legions. Khan conquered the most technologically advanced empires in his time. China, Persia, Khwarazim, the Russians, hell the man would have kept conquering in Europe if he had seen any value in the place.

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.

Please you think that Caesar's conquest were due simply because of the Roman military? Tell that too the thousands of legionaries that died in Germany in A.D. 9

OMG Khan conquered China (sarcasm)!! Yea like who hasen't? The chinese have a good history of getting their asses kicked by people they easily outnumbered and had better tech. The chinese losing to a nomatic army of Mongolia is really nothing special, it happend plenty of times before and after. Im not saying the chinese were always weak they did have times of stability, but also they had many times of getting owned by what would seem weaker opponents.

Yea the Mongols invaded Russia at a good time. Lets see if they succeded facing a russian army in the hands of an ACTUAL competant commander like Suvorov, Kutuzov, Zhukov, etc..

[Koga No Goshi]

Napoleon. He was on the most equal footing with his opponents in actual military power. Alexander had superior new methods at his disposal, whereas Temujin had the always considerable power of massed steppe-nomad hordes at his disposal - plus he got lucky. Had China not been in one of its "civil war and splinter states" periods at the time he'd probably never have become a Great Khan to begin with.

As acute superiority in military method and pure conjecture are at best distantly derived from skill as a commander (unless the guy actually invented or introduced the better method), that leaves Napoleon. Plus unlike Genghis he actually pretty much did run the show by himself, which started backfiring when his physical condition and mental acuteness later began to detoriate.

You're aware that the Mongols usually had SMALLER armies than their enemies, right? Even the fragmented Chinese states they fought. They were also woefully behind the Chinese and Persians and all the established empires in technology, they didn't even understand the purpose or function of settled cities and didn't have any siege weapons until after they conquered China.