Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Alexander?

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

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:

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.

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

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.

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.

Quote:

---

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? ~;)

Quote:

---

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.

The Persians were a decaying empire when Alexander came.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Ulrih fon Jungingen

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 ;)

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

~: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

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

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

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Colovion

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

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.

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

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

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by The Wizard

Cumans is another term for Qipchaqs. ~;)

---

Yep.....Cumans, Qipchaqs and Polovtsians

Quote:

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Orda Khan

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nokhor

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:

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

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:

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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.