Printable View
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
Alexander is the best.
He just conquered so much in so little time. :charge:
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)
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.
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
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.
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
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Advocatus Sanctis Sepulchris
Quote:
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by King of Atlantis
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.
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/mo...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
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:
here, the red spot shows alexander's empire when HE died :)Quote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
i don't know if u can see the diference ;)
https://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y2...exandersux.jpg
and here's a map of the mongol empire when it was the biggest.
http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/2532/img18.gif
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:
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.jpgQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Timurid_Empire
The biggest !
i read somewhere, that Timur might have been a better strategist than genghis, hard to believe tho
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
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
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).Quote:
Originally Posted by caesar44
~Wiz
Timur had difficulty with keeping places in line. He was constantly fighting the same place over and over again, often with the same person.
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 ~;)
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.
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
Weren't Chinese spies responsible for creating internal fights amoungst themselves? I believe they also did that against the gokturks. ~:confused:
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
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 southQuote:
Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland
........Orda
[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... ~;)
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.