 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Sikander
|
 |
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kidicious
Both Kahn and Alexander had awesome logistical skills. I think Alexander had good skills in actual battle, but the Mongol battle plan seems pretty simple.
Again, I say Napolean had the best overall skills that a general needs to be successfull. I don't think Alexander would have done as well in Napolean's situation. |
A great point which is often overlooked. I voted for Alexander because he was a great logician among other reasons.
He defeated a land and naval superpower with which he was not connected by land. He did this over 300 years before Christ, where battles were set-piece affairs and leaders actually fought rather than directed the action from a high point. He effectively used his heavy cavalry as a subtracted reserve in many battles, which is the first use of this technique that I can find in history.
He conquered Anatolia, the plains of Mesopotamia and the deserts of Egypt, and the mountains of Afghanistan. He fought large set piece battles, conducted wars of maneuver, brilliant sieges and assaults, and even successfully concluded a long guerilla war against indiginous opposition in Afghanistan.
He did all of this with a very moderate amount of force, and he didn't simply pass through an area and control it for a moment, but (with the exception of India) established a new politcal order in every land he conquered. He was a master strategist, tactician, logician and personality.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Sikander
|
|
Boulder, Colorado, United Snakes of America
Jan 2000
time: 22:36
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by lord of the mark
and of course mohammed only conquered the arabian peninsula, but his next 4 successors, the "rightly guided" caliphs, were perhaps the most impressive conquerors in world history. With a group of nomads as pathetic as any pre ghengis mongols, they beat two of the worlds greatest powers, took most of the heartland of ancient and classical civiilization, establishing an empire from the Atlantic to eastern persia, and whats more the empire they established lasted longer as a unit than Alexanders, and had a cultural impact that well exceeded that of the mongols.
as a collective they should get top honors. |
Yes, but these conquests are similar in kind to the Allies rolling up the German and Japanese conquests toward the end of WW2. A weak and very overextended Byzantine empire did the Arabs a huge favor by eliminating the local potential opposition in much of this area, while not offering hardly any resistance themselves when the Arabs came knocking.
The Arab conquests are still amazing and all, but they fall into the same category as Cortes et al, depending in large part on extremely good fortune.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
I cannot accept that a general who won a lot of important battles against able generals, but lost a gigantic army in Russia that lead to France's second-rate status for the rest of its history can be labelled the best conqueror in history. If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle.
Khan, Alexander, Caesar and Scipio all have to rank above Napoleon, IMHO. |
France a second-rate power after Napoleon??? Hardly....their defeat of Austria in 1859 lead to Italian Independence and...oh yea they did amass an empire that by the end of WWI stretched for around 5 million square miles. In fact, military observers thought France was the strongest nation in Europe (and thus indirectly, the world) for much of the time in the 19th century that preceded the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71. Impressive French performances in the Crimean War (1854-56) and the Franco-Austrian War (1859) only reinforced this view. France maintained its status as a superpower until it utterly lost it in WWII. And do not forget the Great War. The French soldier was the German's worst nightmare. Had France not held out under the manouvers of rectification of Joffre (which made up for his disastrous start in the Battle of the Frontiers) WWI would've been won by Germany.
"I cannot accept that a general who won a lot of important battles against able generals.." - I detect somewhat of a condescending tone here. Napoleon actually defeated Emperors and Czars. The Battle of Austerlitz is known by a famous nickname, "The Battle of the Three Emperors". Napoleon defeated just about anyone and everyone (even in losing campaigns).
"If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle." - Well "my" criteria was actually chosen by your misguided proclivities, but I have the utmost respect for Hannibal. In fact, my top five military commanders of all time are, starting with the first and going up, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Frederick (I'm surprised at how little he's been mentioned, if at all...if we exclude Silesia, he's not much of a conqueror since he largely fought in a defensive posture during the Seven Years War, but still he's one of the greatest commanders ever), and Caesar. Cannae is my favorite all-time battle; I consider it to be the most decisive in history (from the military standpoint; politically it produced the resignation of half the Roman senate and a lot of commotion...but not much else)....
Last edited by UberCryxic on 11-09-2004 at 05:49
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Kuciwalker
|
 |
of Schmooism
Feb 2001
time: 00:36
|
|
quote:
"If this is your criteria, Hannibal has to rank up there as well, even though his side lost the war and he lost the decisive battle." - Well "my" criteria was actually chosen by your misguided proclivities, but I have the utmost respect for Hannibal. In fact, my top five military commanders of all time are, starting with the first and going up, Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal, Frederick (I'm surprised at how little he's been mentioned, if at all...if we exclude Silesia, he's not much of a conqueror since he largely fought in a defensive posture during the Seven Years War, but still he's one of the greatest commanders ever), and Caesar. Cannae is my favorite all-time battle; I consider it to be the most decisive in history (from the military standpoint; politically it produced the resignation of half the Roman senate and a lot of commotion...but not much else).... |
I take it you're excluding modern battles? Like, say, Gulf I/II? 
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Alexander's Horse
How does one compare the epic marches of Alexander with those of Napoleon? Napoleon abandoned his army in Russia. Alexander led his force all the way to India and back before 300 bc. Even if there had been no fighting it would still have been one of the greatest marches of all time. |
Why would you say something like this? Napoleon's forces marched way over 1,000 miles in his 1805-1807 stint that saw the defeat of Austria, Prussia, and Russia (and if we're counting the return trip and the Spanish campaign of late 1808 and early 1809 then there's a lot of mileage there buddy). Honestly now why anyone would truncate the MARCHING aspect of Napoleonic warfare is ridiculous. The French could march 30 miles a day.
"Exhibit A of American ignorance of geography."
Be as cynical as you will, but I don't think he was ignorant. Depending on the system used to measure how much one "conquered", it can be proved that Napoleon conquered more than Alexander. In fact, there are sources that claim Napoleon has conquered the most. I don't agree with the system, however. To me, Genghis Khan has conquered the most ever. Here is what can be used, deviously, to justify Napoleon as #1: if one includes any territory that Napoleon gained but didn't hold indefinitely (ie. continuously), then it's easily provable that Napoleon was the greatest conqueror ever. Also, if we include Napoleon's "allies", the puppet states like Austria and Prussia, as French "territory" (which they officially weren't, but if we were to), the case becomes even clearer. You're looking at the LOUISANA TERRITORY, ALL OF CONTINENTAL EUROPE, AND EGYPT as part of the conquest list. If this were the case then Alexander and Genghis Khan would be reduced to tears. Like I said, it all depends on the way we analyze it. Personally, this system is ridiculous and clearly biased. I don't think Napoleon is the greatest conqueror in terms of square miles, but there are many aspects to being a "great conqueror" besides how much land you can grab.
To Molly: Yea I love Napoleon. But I also love Alexander nearly as much. Napoleon faced the most experienced commanders in Europe at the time and constantly defeated them. If you are going to speak of incompetence, then Darius should be your prime example! The Persian millitary employed such a quixotic system during the campaigns that it undercut practicality and viability.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Ned
How can Napolean be considered great when his disaster in Russia ranks up there with Andrianople. Napoleon deserves to be compared with Valens, not with Caesar. |
Not really....last I checked Adrianople was a battle, and Napoleon didn't lose any battle in Russia. You also can't compare it with the disastrous T'umu campaign of 1449 because there the Mongols actually destroyed the Chinese. In the Russian campaigns, the Russian army didn't do much to hurt the French (except the scorched-earth policy). A combination of a hostile populace, poor harvests/roads, and wretched weather did the Grand Army in quite nicely.....
|
|
| |
|
|
|
UberCryxic
|
|
Not really....last I checked Adrianople was a battle, and Napoleon didn't lose any battle in Russia. You also can't compare it with the disastrous T'umu campaign of 1449 because there the Mongols actually destroyed the Chinese. In the Russian campaigns, the Russian army didn't do much to hurt the French (except the scorched-earth policy). A combination of a hostile populace, poor harvests/roads, and wretched weather did the Grand Army in quite nicely.....
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:36.
Apolyton Time is 00:36. |
top of page
|
| archivepost |
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
10-09-2004 10:26
Attachment: 
|
