Printable View
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
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.
Genghis Khan...
He was a great commander....
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.
I'm pretty sure that if Napoleon was German or American, you would be like "OMG, Napoleon is over-awesome !!" :rolleyes2:Quote:
I dont think much of Napoleon
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.
Genghis by far... ~;)
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.
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:
Napoleon. :book:
Caesar-, the first man ever to ruled the land from the Atlantic to the Euphrates !
Where's Subetai, Jebe Noyen, Tokugawa Ieyasu, Belisarius, Manstein, or Kesselring?
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:
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:Quote:
I'm pretty sure that if Napoleon was German or American, you would be like "OMG, Napoleon is over-awesome !!" :rolleyes2:
Of course Genghis Khan ~D
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
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
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...Quote:
Originally Posted by Watchman
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.Quote:
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.
Genghis easily. Napolean and Alexander were both exceptional commanders but Gengis Khan was the greatest conquerer who ever lived.
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.
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.
Hello Wiz,Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
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
The Great Khan, no question.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by oaty
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
: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:
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
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
Britians were not barbaric, nor were any of his enemies.Quote:
4. He was the first "non barbaric" in britannia
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
I would add Hannibal to the list too.
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.
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?