 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Chris 62
|
 |
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
The great Kahn, Chengis, who was known as Temujin in his youth, BY FAR.
A man took a small nomadic people, forged them into a nearly invincable army, defeated one nation after another, ALWAYS greatly outnumbered, and ever victorious.
No other military leader comes close, Alexander was no great stratagist, nor able tactician (his favorite tactic was a headlong cavalery charge into an enemie's flank, hardly noteworthy).
Brave and couragous, to be sure, but the greatest?
I don't believe so.
A good case can be made for Bonaparte, this man was probaly the most clear thinking battefield tacticain in history, uterly unperturbed by events or setbacks, his favored tactic was 'you engage, then you wait and see", meaning you make your plans as the situation dictates and act accordingly.
His greatest failing was promoting his own family and best officers into comfortible postions, where they often ended up at odds with him! (His brother Louis is a prime example, as King of Holland, refusing to send money and men to France at Napoleon's order, Jerome acting as if Westphalia was a party created just for his amusment, Murat is another, thinking Naples was his by devine right, instead of by boney's dispensation! )
Several other great soldiers are mentioned in the poll, by I will stick with the man that nearly took the entire known world, Chengis Khan.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Alexander's Horse
|
 |
Panmunjon, hands up!
Jan 1970
time: 15:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Chris 62
Alexander was no great stratagist, nor able tactician (his favorite tactic was a headlong cavalery charge into an enemie's flank, hardly noteworthy).
|
That is a comment of the ignorance I have come to expect from you. You obviously no little or nothing of Alexander's campaigns and your comment speaks for itself in its stupidity.
Boshko, you are a dill. The Persian empire put up an epic resistance to the Macedonians over about a decade. Hardly the sign of an empire tottering on the verge of collapse.
Invading Persia was the equivalent of invading Russia in the 19th and 20th century. The Persian empire was so rich and huge that it was left up to Western Satraps to deal with Alexander for the first couple of years. The main empire didn't even rouse itself and when it did it was more like hunting down a new Greek nuisance than destroying an invader. How wrong they were. Alexander just kept coming, unlike previous Greek expeditions.
Last edited by Alexander's Horse on 12-08-2002 at 09:35
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Chris 62
|
|
But I'm feeling MUCH better now
Jan 2001
time: 00:21
|
|
The mongols were notorius for using intimidation to take walled cities.
They never bothered with siege equipment, they would issue an ultimatum to surrender and pay tribute, and quite often this was enough (as the mongols had already defeated a given nation's field army).
They would make special examples of defiance, they would starve out a reluctant city, often using false messages, crulity (torture of prisoners in full view of defenders, for example), anything to undermine moral.
Once a city surrendered, they would typically slowly and painfully kill the enemy leaders (pouring moltan silver down one Russian prince's throat, for example) as a lesson for future cities, and killing the defenders, and drafting all other males to be conscripted into the Mongol army (the women to be raped, of course).
For a thrilling Mongol campaign, read about the defeat of the Khwarizmian empire( modern day Iran and Iraq), an army of 250,000 by a mongol force of only 40,000 men! (it took them 11 years, but they did it in grand style)
|
|
| |
|
|
|
notyoueither
|
 |
of naught
Aug 2001
time: 22:21
|
|
Ghenghis and Alex were surely great, but...
For my money it's gotta be Nappy. Nothing was handed to him. He was entitled to nada. He bit and chew and clawed his way to the top during chaotic times. Of course, were it not for the chaos, he could not have done so and would have died an obscure, retired Colonel of Artillery (if he were lucky). However, those were his times, and he made the most of them.
Then comes the greatness. The Italian campaign was pure genius. The 'poor, unfortunate Mack' of Ulm and the brilliance of the Austerlitz campaign, the thorough thrashing of Prussia. These campaigns demonstrate the brilliance of Bonaparte as a leader in the field.
Yes, there was a twilight. Round 2 with Austria in 09 and Russia in 12 were not as successful, or became catastrophes. But by then, his continental foes had had enough time to adjust the entire structures of their militaries simply to defeat him. He was a general of an era ahead of himself.
In ancient or medeival times the conquest of Austria and then Prussia would have been final. They never would have been allowed to get up again by Alex or the Khan. Not possible in the world of 19th century Europe. One man can not change everything, but Nappy came damn close.
As far as everything goes, Alex was gifted with the army of Phillip. The Khans were leaders of the best troops of their age. Napoleon inherited the armies of the first Nation at Arms. All of them benefitted from their circumstances. Who made the most of their circumstances?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Serb
|
|
Siberia, Communist party of Apolyton
Nov 2001
time: 11:21
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Stefu
MANNERHEIM!  |
Sure, everyone know that Manerheim was the general of Russian army This poll should contain at least one Russian general.
Btw, Monkspyder,
Where the f*ck is Suvorov, Kutuzov and Zhukov? Why Napoleon and Rommel are in your list, but guys who kicked their asses are not? (Well, not Rommel’s actually, but Bock, Guderian, Mainstein and co.)
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:21.
Apolyton Time is 00:21. |
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
12-08-2002 07:50
Attachment: 
Attachment: 
(true)
|
