Greatest (historical) Medieval Generals [Archive]

matteus the inbred

01-24-2006, 13:09

I have this book called Who's Who in Military History 1485-1991. The only strictly medieval general to appear (obviously there aren't many!) is Richard III, King of England, who now appears to be very highly rated on the basis of just three battles (one of which he may have been commanding some troops in, one of which he did command some troops in, and one of which he lost) and some sieges where he had guns and the Scots didn't.
Anyway, I was wondering who people consider to be the greatest medieval generals from, say 1066-1487, although it's ok if people want to suggest leaders a bit outside this time period cos this is not a poll. As warfare is an unpredictable business and was considered even more so back then (people were rarely castigated for losing the odd battle, the impression I get is that people felt it really could happen to anyone, and if the cause was good they'd keep fighting, hence the Lancastrians and Scots and Welsh rarely gave up for long despite some very crushing defeats). I'd be particularly interested in non-British generals as I don't know so much about them. So, they don't have to be unbeaten, or to have fought many battles (Richard the Lionheart only fought two or three in his entire career and I'd certainly nominate him).
My choices would include 'winners' like Edward I, Richard I and Edward IV of England, Saladin and William the Conqueror, but also 'losers' like Harold Godwinsson and Owen Glendower.

The Blind King of Bohemia

01-24-2006, 13:30

Edward the third, Edward woodstock Prince of Wales, Jan Ziska, Du Guesclin, Simon De Monfort the Elder, Edward the First, John the Blind of Bohemia, the list is endless for great medieval generals

matteus the inbred

01-24-2006, 13:47

I thought John the Blind got killed at Crecy? Not that this disqualifies him, but I wondered if he had a previous reputation for success? (and yes, i did note the username connection!)

I personally think the Black Prince was a great warrior, not necessarily a great general, although this is arguably a vital criteria for medieval generals who usually had to get stuck in. I'd agree with the others, though if the French hadn't been so tactically inept i doubt anyone called Edward would feature in this list...! Jan Ziska is undoubtedly among the top few.

The Blind King of Bohemia

01-24-2006, 13:55

John the Blind was at war with much success against most of his neighbours throughout his reign as king. He was a close friend of King Philip of France and often campaigned with the Teutonic Knights agasint the Baltic tribes. Although many believed the man to be fully blind, some historians believe he was only partial blind by the time of the battle of Wadicourt.

I would also add Stefan Dusan and Hunyadi to that list

matteus the inbred

01-24-2006, 13:58

interesting...thanks Blind King, that's all new to me.

Knight Templar

01-24-2006, 14:48

Interesting thread

I think they 'd be Edward the Black Prince, Edward I, Jan Ziska, Janos Hunyadi, Saladin, his uncle Chirkok and of course Genghis Khan.

Some great Byzantine generals, are a bit out of 1066-1487 period: John Curcuas and emperors Nicephorpus II Phocas, John I and Basil II.

King Ragnar

01-24-2006, 17:49

King Ragnar ~D, lol joke, Ghengis Khan Maybe?

Azi Tohak

01-24-2006, 18:19

About anyone from Ghengis Khan's command tree. Suebedei is my favorite though. For Westerners, I'd have to go with... err... I don't know. Alexius I Comnenus is one of my favorite persons from that period, but I don't know how much commanding he did after he became Emperor. Probably not a bit.

Azi

matteus the inbred

01-24-2006, 18:36

Alexius Comnenus was a pretty canny commander by most accounts (the Crusaders considered him a sneaky sod though), and was tested against numerous difficult opponents like Robert Guiscard and his Normans.

I feel similarly about Mongol commanders as I do about English 100 Years War generals; they had a system that worked against anything they met and top-quality professional troops to implement it, until their opponents innovated and came up with something to beat that system (the history of warfare in a nutshell?!). The Mongol guys were all very good at what they did though.

Kalle

01-24-2006, 20:32

Valdemar Atterdag of Denmark I guess.

Sten Sture (cant remember who won most, the older or younger) of Sweden.

Kalle

Kalle

01-24-2006, 20:34

Ah the Stures are hardpressed to fit into the timephrame, nonetheless medieval times in Sweden is counted to 1523.

Otherways ill say Engelbrekt Engelbrektsson of Sweden, he fits nicely into timeframe.

Kalle

Leet Eriksson

01-25-2006, 00:10

Kilij Arslan, sure he lost doryleum or whatitscalled, but he did win 2 battles afterwards that severly limited crusader reinforcements.

Nur-Al-Din Zengi, they claim he was never defeated, but never actually drove the crusaders out of the holy land, a better commander than saladin though.

Robert Guiscard (1053, very close really), Battle of Civitate. Beating a large papal army, lombards and byzantines.. thats balls right there alright!

Henry V, he almost controlled all of western europe by controlling the pope, as well as defeating the french during the 100 years war.

Atilius

01-25-2006, 05:53

I'd like to nominate Rodrigo Diaz de Vivar (El Cid). He's early for the period mentioned, but his first victory as an army commander was probably in 1068. He fought with great success for and against almost everyone in Spain and was one of the few (the only?) to turn back the Almoravids.

Of those who have already been mentioned, I have to agree with du Guesclin.

Also with Edward III, but more for sheer energy and ambition (this applies to him in wine and women as well as in war) than for generalship per se. Won battles on land (Crecy) and sea (Sluys).

kataphraktoi

01-25-2006, 07:34

Genghis Khan.....
Genghis Khan.....
Genghis Khan.....

Intelligient strategist, shrewd tactician, a true judge of men's character, a superiort manager of men and a real inspiration for every single Mongolian soldier.

Wielded nomads into a professional fighting machine that urban civilisations with all their wealth could not train..again this is due to Genghis Khan's people skills...except for the enemy haha.

Ludens

01-25-2006, 12:47

How about Vlad Tepez? From what I heard he pretty much held of Ottamam might on his own.

Subedei

01-25-2006, 13:09

Ghengiz's hounds of war: Jebe & most of all Subedei Bathur...still 800 years later Montgomery & Rommel studied intensively their cavalry tactics....

matteus the inbred

01-25-2006, 13:34

How about Vlad Tepez? From what I heard he pretty much held of Ottamam might on his own.

yeah, that's a good one. I read a very good article about him in a wargaming mag a long time ago...a real innovator (mostly in the field of inflicting unpleasantness on people, but that doesn't disqualify it from being innovation...) and a classic master of light cavalry harassment and psychological warfare.

it's interesting that most of the generals people are mentioning seem to be Eastern European/Asiatics. maybe we have a lot of skirmishing fans out there...!

King Henry V

01-25-2006, 14:13

Me.

Kraxis

01-25-2006, 14:21

Since all the obvious generals has been mentioned, I was thinking about Timur-i-Lenk, Timur the Lame, Tamerlane (as we say in Denmark: "beloved child carries many names").

He was pretty good. Defeating Mongols at what they did best and even on home turf. Also giving the Ottomans a nice headache when they were a rising star. And it wasn't as if he had the best equipped troops or even the most numerous, he just seemed to be better than the collective amount of his opponents.

The Blind King of Bohemia

01-25-2006, 17:17

I would have also said Tamerlane but his actions after battle went against him sometimes. His invasion and plunder of northern india was probably the most pointless, senseless and bloody actions in the history of warfare. The wholesale murder of the garrison of Delhi was cold blooded enough and even though the numbers may be exagerated it would have been at least 30-40,000 soldiers and that is not counting the innocents slaughtered, then another action at Sivas he had the christian and Armenian parts of the garrison buried alive.

Then again most of the Generals mentioned massacred populations one time or another, Richard the Third at Acre, the Black Prince at Limoges, Genghis Khan in many sieges in China, etc so i can't judge them on that basis

Meneldil

01-25-2006, 18:33

Genghis Khan, obviously, and his successors aswell (especially, according to Marco Polo's probably biased opinion) Khubilay.
Timur wasn't that bad I'd say, although I think he wasn't a great leader overall.

Carolus Magnus would also deserve to be highly ranked. Although he's rather remembered as a State Leader, he was also a fairly good general.

it's interesting that most of the generals people are mentioning seem to be Eastern European/Asiatics. maybe we have a lot of skirmishing fans out there...!

Battles in Asia were usually fought with much more men than in Europe. Once again, according to Marco Polo, the various Mongol Khanate could have fielded millions of horsemen. Although his numbers are surely overrated, I think the real skirmishes happened in Europe where lord A would attack lord B with his few retainers.

Taffy_is_a_Taff

01-25-2006, 18:43

Bertrand Du Guesclin:

Breton general (and Constable of France, 1370-80).
Served various people's backsides to them.

Edit: I also like that he didn't seem to try really hard to make the Bretons submit to France (a job he was sent to do by the French king).

matteus the inbred

01-25-2006, 18:49

Battles in Asia were usually fought with much more men than in Europe. Once again, according to Marco Polo, the various Mongol Khanate could have fielded millions of horsemen. Although his numbers are surely overrated, I think the real skirmishes happened in Europe where lord A would attack lord B with his few retainers.

and yet the skirmishing experts were Asiatic and Turkish troops (and Spanish peninsula), and Middle European troops tended to be heavy infantry and cavalry.
Obviously, everyone had their raiding types (Hobilars, chevauchee tactics, border reivers etc), but skirmishing as we recognise it (light horse, javelins, prolonged harassment tactics) seems to have been an eastern thing. no doubt cos it was hotter out there and harder to rely on armour. Hungarians and Georgians and suchlike succesfully combined the two into scary armies of light horse experts and heavy charging cavalry and knights.

Most Wars of the Roses/100 Years War period European generals probably won't get as highly rated as tactical commanders because the tactics were not sophisticated and usually involved two lines hacking away at each other following a prolonged archery duel. Henry V, Hotspur, Edward IV, John de Vere Earl of Oxford (Henry VII's commander) and Lord Fauconberg all had military talent, innovative attitudes and good strategic ability too.
Can't argue about the numbers thing, the biggest battle fought on English soil (Towton) probably had no more than 50-60,000 men involved on both sides!

Taffy_is_a_Taff

01-25-2006, 20:18

George Dunbar, IXth Earl of March.

Scottish noble, critical in retaking much of southern Scotland in the late 14th century.

Incongruous

01-25-2006, 21:19

I thought they had narrowed Towton down to 80-90000 now?

Anyway, William the first of England, Alp Arslan, Henry V, Edward of Woodstock, Saladin. There are so many others...

Steppe Merc

01-25-2006, 21:51

Subotai, Chinggis' greatest general.

The Blind King of Bohemia

01-25-2006, 22:05

Towton as big as battle as it was and the biggest on British soil, it never had 100,000 men involved and i think the numbers were probably 30,000 each and thats a stretch in itself

LeftEyeNine

01-26-2006, 01:49

Tamerlane (in Turkish, Timur Lenk or Aksak Timur = Timur the Lame) was surely a headache for Ottomans causing them to stumble in the early times of their rising, that was followed by the Fetret (=Oblivion) Period that was 11 years of throne struggles amongst the heirs. He had defeated one of the most well-known Ottoman Padishahs - Bayezid (or Beyazıt) the Bolt (yes Bolt, and he is officially called Bayezid I) in the battle of Ankara.

Speaking of the Ottomans and the period the fellow member indicated in the starter post, I can easily count two names that stand out : Fatih Sultan Mehmet (Mehmet the Conqueror, Mehmed II) and Yavuz Sultan Selim ( Yavuz= Stern, tough, resolute etc., or officially Selim I)

Fatih Sultan Mehmet does not need much explanation with his glorious deeds for his empire while having a significant impact at the stimulation of Renaissance in Europe. The conquest of Constantinople was the breaking of the deadlock for further expansion of the empire into the Europe. Enlarging the borders all over the Balkans, stabilization of the Anatolian homelands around the Black Sea and against other minor beyliks(=feudal states), the victory in the battle of Otlukbeli against the Akkoyunlular can briefly sum up what he had done during his period.

Yavuz Sultan Selim, never hesitating to execute who was in the way to his absolute power or repelling his ideas (he surely deserves his nick), started his tremendous expansion quests defeating Safevis (sp?) in the battle of Çaldıran. And after conquering the southeastern Anatolia, he was ready to move towards Egypt. Following his Mercidabık victory over Mamelukes, Ottoman Empire had gained Damascus and Halep and thus Syria. The final blow at the Mamelukes with the battle of Ridaniye was giving rewards to Ottomans such as not only vast lands but also the leadership of all the Muslims with possession of the Caliphate. Hayreddin Barbarossa had also presented his loyalty to the Ottomans, being Algerian Beylerbeyi in return after acceptance. This acceptance was followed by the construction of a large naval force, thus moving the caution of the Ottomans towards securing the Mediterranean dominance later on. He simply tripled how much land Ottoman Empire had.

Incongruous

01-26-2006, 04:49

while having a significant impact at the stimulation of Renaissance in Europe.

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

LeftEyeNine

01-26-2006, 06:24

What is that supposed to mean, the Rennesisance was already underway mate..

Like what, then ?

Taffy_is_a_Taff

01-26-2006, 14:09

Bopa,

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

Steppe Merc

01-26-2006, 14:58

What is that supposed to mean, the Rennesisance was already underway mate. The only thing the Turks ever did for Europe was conquer and massacre the eastern half of it.
Yeah, that's a real unbiased view of a people...
How about the Qipchaqs, who were going to help the Hungarians against the Mongols until the Hungarian nobles betrayed their Khan?

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

matteus the inbred

01-26-2006, 15:00

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

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

littlebktruck

01-27-2006, 02:41

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

ajaxfetish

01-27-2006, 07:21

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

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

Ajax

Rosacrux redux

01-27-2006, 09:32

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

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

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

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

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

matteus the inbred

01-27-2006, 11:39

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

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

Kalle

01-27-2006, 13:10

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

Kalle

Rosacrux redux

01-27-2006, 14:01

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

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

Meneldil

01-27-2006, 14:16

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

Kalle

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

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

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

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

matteus the inbred

01-27-2006, 14:17

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

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

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

Kalle

01-27-2006, 14:45

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

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

Kalle

Steppe Merc

01-27-2006, 14:56

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

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

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

Rosacrux redux

01-27-2006, 15:28

Meneldil - steppe merc

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

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

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

Knight Templar

01-27-2006, 15:46

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

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

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

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

Kalle

01-27-2006, 16:19

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

Kalle

matteus the inbred

01-27-2006, 16:36

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

Kalle

01-27-2006, 16:39

There we go, thank you Matteus.

Kalle

Steppe Merc

01-27-2006, 20:58

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

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

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

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

Meneldil

01-27-2006, 23:36

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Prince Cobra

02-06-2006, 10:21

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

matteus the inbred

02-06-2006, 11:28

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

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

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

Kalle

02-06-2006, 13:25

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

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

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

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

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

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

Kalle

Prince Cobra

02-06-2006, 23:01

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

My mistake- 1st page (bottom)'...30 factions...' MtW2 thread
About Kaloyan here is his portray (his skull has been found so the image is realistic)
http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/kaloyan.gif
from http://debian.fmi.uni-sofia.bg/~nikola1/Bul/kaloyan.gif

Afonso I of Portugal

02-08-2006, 16:45

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

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

Incongruous

02-13-2006, 06:02

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

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

Hurin_Rules

02-13-2006, 07:12

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

Orda Khan

02-13-2006, 18:47

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

......Orda

Kagemusha

02-13-2006, 21:26

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