Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Alexander?

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...

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

*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 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
Second (Eastern) Kök Türk empire



~Wiz

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....

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.

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

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....

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

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 ...

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

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....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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.

---

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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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

---

BP , he lost it in India...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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....

---

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)

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:

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 ?

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



~Wiz

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



Please , start one !

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 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 ?

---

Swartzenegger LOL!!!

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steppe Merc

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by caesar44

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.

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

......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

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Marquis of Roland

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

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.