Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Alexander?

[Steppe Merc]

I did hear that Caesar allowed himself to be assassinated, in order to live on forever, and to not fade away due to his epilepsy (I think that's what he had).

And Prom, I'd have to disagree with that. First of all, it's way to Medditeranean centric. And I don't see Caesar as a great conquerer. Perhaps a good leader, but when you compare him to Timur (where the hell was he? Sure he was a bit haphazard, but he was a great conquerer) and Chingis, he can't stand up.
Hannibal I can see being on there. But none of them could pull off the incredibely complicated feats that Chingis did.

[Evil_Maniac From Mars]

Out of those 3, the Khan. But of all time, it would be a close call between Frederick the Great, Otto the Great, Ghengis Khan, and Subodai Bahadur.

[caesar44]

caesar44, please do NOT misspell my name! This is a King's warning! If you don't comply with, I will throw to you a roofing tile!!!

THAT IS , PYRRHUS

[caesar44]

If we went by the rule of "Success in the end makes a good general." then we'd have a very skewed system. George Washington for example.. terrible general, but a great leader of men. He won, so does that change the fact that he wasn't a good general? Not really.

Please measure Caesar on every aspect -
1. Tactic
2. Strategy
3. political ability
4. Luck
5. Success
6. Leadership
7. Popularity
8. Ambition
9. Determination
10. Perspective - you know , he visited some temple of Alexander the great , then he came out to his soldiers with tears , they asked him why he cries , Caesar said , "I am nearly 40 years old , what have I achieved compare to him when he was 33" , 15 years afterwards , Caesar was the first man ever to control the land from the Atlantic to the Euphrates (he took the empire , not received it like the emperors in later times) .
Now , remember , in the first 2 month of 44ce , Caesar planed his campaigns against the Gaetae and against the Parthians....but alas , the rest is history , he was so arrogant and I belive he wanted to die as he did (he entered the senate with out bodyguard , knowing about the plot)

[King of Atlantis]

A mutiny is not exactly a plus on his record, nor is the fact that he had to turn back due to losses. A loss is still a loss, even though you might not have lost a battle, if you turn back, it's still a loss.

What do you want him to do, conquer the whole world, everybody has to turn back sometime.

And what about his campaigns agains the Sakae (possibly, not sure)? I could have sworn he lost against them...

dont know, if you could provide a link.


prom, cool source, but i think alexander should have gotten commander of troops. That was one of the things he was best at.

The only thing he really laked was innovation, but that could possibly be because he didnt have to, his father had taken care of that for him.

[Steppe Merc]

I don't have a link, that's my problem.

Now , remember , in the first 2 month of 44ce , Caesar planed his campaigns against the Gaetae and against the Parthians....but alas , the rest is history , he was so arrogant and I belive he wanted to die as he did (he entered the senate with out bodyguard , knowing about the plot)

The Gaetae are who, just out of curosity? And he might have done decently against the Parthians, though I think most of Rome's victories came after the Parthians decline.

[caesar44]

1- Ceasar was a sound tactician, but he was not spectacular. Above average, but not a Tactician on level of Napoleon or Genghis.

2. Ceasar was definately of sound strategic mind. Of that there is little doubt.

3. Same as #2.

4.I don't think there's any doubt he was a fairly lucky man. He was able to get his hands on veteran legions--without which, he wouldnt have succeeded in either taking Gaul or beating Pompey.

5. Success. This is a mixed bag, he achieved his short-term goals, but I'd wager the man wanted to live a little longer. That said, he paved the way for the empire, and that's no small feat.

6. Leadership was his greatest tactical asset. While he was not exactly a spectacular general in the technical sense, he didn't need to be. All he had to do was impress his legions, and they'd do the rest--and he certainyl succeeded at that.

7. Ceasar was fairly popular, largely due to the false image of his campaigns he'd been sending the Senate.

8. Ambitioin is his largest personality trait. He wanted to be Alexander the Great.

9. I prefer to call it being stubborn, but he had plenty of it.

10. Perspective? I think Ceasar's perspective was a quest of power. He wasn't a hero, and certainly not what you'd call a "Kind" man. He wanted power, and he got it.

So i'll repeat myself again: Ceasar can be ranked among the greats, for the same reason as Alexander the Great: Accomplishments and Cultural Impact. They were both great leaders of men, with great armies that neither of them helped create. Ambition coupled with Charisma allowed both men to do great things, but neither of them were particularly amazing tacticians. Alexander, for example, was known to get a little carried away in battle, leaving the troops to their fate--luckily, he had some damned fine troops, and all that getting carried away was seen by the troops as personal bravery, which inspired them. Ceasar learned from this, and often went into the fray himself to inspire his troops, which it did.

We are almost in agreement (about 92.158%) about the man

[caesar44]

I don't have a link, that's my problem.


The Gaetae are who, just out of curosity? And he might have done decently against the Parthians, though I think most of Rome's victories came after the Parthians decline.

Sorry , That is Gatae , a name for a Dacian tribe in the first century bce


Centered in what is now modern Romania (especially the region of Transylvania), Dacia was a prosperous nation tracing its roots to the 7th century BC, whose mixed tribal populace was comprised of northern Thracians (Greek "Gatae" or Roman "Das"), Germanic and Celtic tribes and settled nomadic horsemen such as the Skythians and Sarmatians. Unlike their neighbors to the north, the Dacians (Geto-Dacians) evolved a well-organized society centered around defensive strongholds (oppida), which quickly evolved into walled cities such as their capital Sarmizegethusa. A well established trade was conducted with Rome in wine, gold and silver work, pottery, and iron tools and weapons of high quality. Although known as farmers and traders, they acquired a reputation as fierce warriors under the leadership of the Dacian King Burebista and later under King Decebalus during his nearly 20 years of almost continuous conflict with Imperial Rome.

[Steppe Merc]

Thank you.

[Ricdog]

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.

Oh thats bull! Khan aint got nothing on Napoleon or Caesar. Not only were both great administrators but military geniuses aswell (more so than Khan or Alexander).

And why would Napoleon pull of Khan's manuevers? It is Khan that can't compete with what Napoleon did with an INFANTRY army (much harder to manuever than those of pure cavalry). The way Napoleon moved his armies in amazing co-ordination in Italy outshine that of Khan's.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Marengo

And ofcourse Caesar moved his legions into Italy with such speed that had virtually been unheard of by a Roman army.

[Ricdog]

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

OMG, LOOOOOOL!!!!!

Seriously claiming that Khan's or Subotai's manuevers were better than Napoleon and Caesar is an insult to logistics. Napoleon or Caesar single handedly have better achievements than all the famous Mongol commander's combined.

Subotai's invasion of Europe and Khan's one of the Middle East are greatly successful, but not above (probubly equal) than what Napoleon did at the beginning of his career in Italy. But that is also nothing to what he achieved later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_Campaign

And lets not forget Caesar's equally impressive assault on Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilerda

[sulla1982ad]

Ok lets report the opinion of a real historian , and opinion of the many academicals ....


From Andrea Fedrian



Now we can all take our conclusions ....

My conclusion is that report is eurocentric. Also why fetishise what historians think? A lot of so called respectable academics are full of it.

[sulla1982ad]

Ok lets report the opinion of a real historian , and opinion of the many academicals ....


From Andrea Fedrian



Now we can all take our conclusions ....

My conclusion is that report is eurocentric. Also why fetishise what historians think? A lot of so called respectable academics are full of it.

[Centurion1]

OMG, LOOOOOOL!!!!!

Seriously claiming that Khan's or Subotai's manuevers were better than Napoleon and Caesar is an insult to logistics. Napoleon or Caesar single handedly have better achievements than all the famous Mongol commander's combined.

Subotai's invasion of Europe and Khan's one of the Middle East are greatly successful, but not above (probubly equal) than what Napoleon did at the beginning of his career in Italy. But that is also nothing to what he achieved later:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ulm_Campaign

And lets not forget Caesar's equally impressive assault on Spain:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Ilerda

Lol, Caesar conquered some barbarians with the most advanced army the world had seen to date and beat some old windbags with green legions. Khan conquered the most technologically advanced empires in his time. China, Persia, Khwarazim, the Russians, hell the man would have kept conquering in Europe if he had seen any value in the place.

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.

[White_eyes:D]

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.

+1 The saying "Never fight a land war in Russia" comes to mind, yet Genghis Khan defyed that.

[ArcturUs]

+1 The saying "Never fight a land war in Russia" comes to mind, yet Genghis Khan defyed that.

I think that saying was for the Western Europeans, as they were unable to bear the harsh weather of Russia. Hitler tried to prove Napoleon wrong by invading Russia, but then that became his worst strategic mistake ever.

As far as Genghis Khan is concerned, most of his success if not all were because of his faith in his Generals. And they rightly gave him the success he wanted. Take Subutai for example, he was the son of a blacksmith, yet he was made a general and given one of the highest positions in the Mongol Military. And he exactly delivered what was asked of him. He directed more than twenty campaigns in which he conquered thirty-two nations and won sixty-five pitched battles, during which he conquered or overran more territory than any other commander in history. He gained victory by means of imaginative and sophisticated strategies and routinely coordinated movements of armies that were hundreds of kilometers away from each other. He is also remembered for devising the campaign that destroyed the armies of Hungary and Poland within two days of each other, by forces over five hundred kilometers apart. (source: Wikipedia)

[White_eyes:D]

I think that saying was for the Western Europeans, as they were unable to bear the harsh weather of Russia. Hitler tried to prove Napoleon wrong by invading Russia, but then that became his worst strategic mistake ever.

True, but the Mongols were not exactly immune to the cold either.

[Marshall Louis-Nicolas Davout]

Napoleon and Genghis Khan

[Skullheadhq]

Why can't I vote Belisarius?

[sulla1982ad]

Khan used to be the best of all time. Then he was defeated by Capitan Kirk in Star Trek 2, hard to take him seriously any more after that! :P

[lolpah]

Remember that Genghis had an awesome nomad army which could, if well led, easily pwn any other contemporary army. Genghis was a good commander no doubt, but his achievements must be put on perspective.

Napoleon, on the other hand, suffered reverses and was ultimately defeated, though we should remember that commanders were likely generally better at that time due to military academies and professional armies.

Alexander conquered the Persian empire, but Greeks had defeated Persians before and Alexander had a good and a well-balanced army. He didn't show any huge tactical skill, but he wasn't bad either, and we really don't know that much.

Genghis conquered the most territory, though Alexander perhaps conquered more in relation to time he spent conquering - He, after all, died before his 33th birthday.

[Centurion1]

LOL. Khan made that awesome nomad army what it was before it was nothing more than chinas pest. then it became the worlds scourge. Not to mention he came from literally nothing he was less than nothing in fact he lived off rats growing up he had no tribe no clan. Napoleon had a commission in the army, caesar was a prominent family, alexander inherited his damn army.

also alexander certainly did show tremendous tactical acumen. defeating the persians and conquering them on land their troops are actually designed to fight in are radically different things

[lolpah]

LOL. Khan made that awesome nomad army what it was before it was nothing more than chinas pest. then it became the worlds scourge. Not to mention he came from literally nothing he was less than nothing in fact he lived off rats growing up he had no tribe no clan. Napoleon had a commission in the army, caesar was a prominent family, alexander inherited his damn army.

also alexander certainly did show tremendous tactical acumen. defeating the persians and conquering them on land their troops are actually designed to fight in are radically different things

Well, you are probably correct about Alexander, but about Genghis, remember that nomads have always managed to destroy badly led infantry armies, and while Genghis undeniably made then even more fatal and disciplined, they were better even to begin with. Also, nomad life favoured skilled but poor individuals more than settled societies, because one needed more skills to live in the steppe.

Also remember that the opponets Genghis face were weaker. Jin dynasty army was innefficient, and the army of Genghis, though outnumbered, was more manouverable than Alexander's army related to Persian army. The enemies Genghis faced after them were either outnumbered, inefficient, or dispersed and lacking strong leadership as in case of Khwarezm.

In contrast, the enemies Napoleon faced had professional armies with little more competent leaderships, and he had no maneuver advantage or at least not as great as Genghis had in relation to his enemies, as is the case also with Alexander.

[Ricdog]

Easy, Napoleon is leauges ahead of Khan or Alexander.

The other 2 may have been more successful in terms of conquering but Napoleon far beyond in terms of skills and tactical genius. Although Alexander and Khan had good victories in Persia, it really doesn't compare to Napoleon's feats in Ulm, Marengo, Austerlitz, etc....
Heck even in terms of opposition Napoleon is ahead. Theres not a single commander that Alexander or Khan faced that could be considered as good as likes of Archduke Charles, Wellington, Nelson, etc...

[Ricdog]

Lol, Caesar conquered some barbarians with the most advanced army the world had seen to date and beat some old windbags with green legions. Khan conquered the most technologically advanced empires in his time. China, Persia, Khwarazim, the Russians, hell the man would have kept conquering in Europe if he had seen any value in the place.

Napoleon pshaw napoleon invaded russia in the winter. Idiot.

Also Napoleon lost. Khan did not lose. And he died emperor of much of the known world.

Please you think that Caesar's conquest were due simply because of the Roman military? Tell that too the thousands of legionaries that died in Germany in A.D. 9

OMG Khan conquered China (sarcasm)!! Yea like who hasen't? The chinese have a good history of getting their asses kicked by people they easily outnumbered and had better tech. The chinese losing to a nomatic army of Mongolia is really nothing special, it happend plenty of times before and after. Im not saying the chinese were always weak they did have times of stability, but also they had many times of getting owned by what would seem weaker opponents.

Yea the Mongols invaded Russia at a good time. Lets see if they succeded facing a russian army in the hands of an ACTUAL competant commander like Suvorov, Kutuzov, Zhukov, etc..

[Koga No Goshi]

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.

You're aware that the Mongols usually had SMALLER armies than their enemies, right? Even the fragmented Chinese states they fought. They were also woefully behind the Chinese and Persians and all the established empires in technology, they didn't even understand the purpose or function of settled cities and didn't have any siege weapons until after they conquered China.