Genghis Khan or Napoleon or Alexander?

[PittBull260]

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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.

[edyzmedieval]

Genghis Khan...

He was a great commander....

[Byzantine Prince]

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.

[Meneldil]

I dont think much of Napoleon

I'm pretty sure that if Napoleon was German or American, you would be like "OMG, Napoleon is over-awesome !!"

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.

[AggonyDuck]

Genghis by far...

[Watchman]

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.

[The Wizard]

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

[Orda Khan]

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

Hello Wiz,
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

[Colovion]

The Great Khan, no question.

[The Wizard]

Hello Wiz,
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

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).

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

[Steppe Merc]

4. He was the first "non barbaric" in britannia

Britians were not barbaric, nor were any of his enemies.

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.

[scaddenp]

Hello Wiz,
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. ......Orda

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.

I would add Hannibal to the list too.

[Red Harvest]

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.

[kallitheus]

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?

[Steppe Merc]

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.

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.

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.

[nokhor]

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.

[caesar44]

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.

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

[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.

[The Wizard]

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

[Ulrih fon Jungingen]

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.

[nokhor]

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.

[Steppe Merc]

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?

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.

[PittBull260]

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 ;)

[Colovion]

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.

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.

[Petrus]

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.