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?
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.
~:eek: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
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.Quote:
Aleksandr had superior weapons against hordes wariors almost without discipline and with weak ruler.
The Persians were a decaying empire when Alexander came.
struggle between each other? Hungary united it's armies with other European troops..and still lost...know your facts bro ;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Ulrih fon Jungingen
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
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:
struggle between each other? Hungary united it's armies with other European troops..and still lost...know your facts bro ;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
I could go on forever. :duel:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
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.
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Colovion
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
In 1804, Napoleon's army was by far the best in europe.Quote:
Originally Posted by xemitg
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
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.
:embarassed:Quote:
Cumans is another term for Qipchaqs.
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.
Yep.....Cumans, Qipchaqs and PolovtsiansQuote:
Originally Posted by The Wizard
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 destroyedQuote:
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
........Orda
Quote:
Originally Posted by Orda Khan
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by nokhor
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... ~;)
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.Quote:
Originally Posted by Steppe Merc
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