Greatest Warrior and Greatest Military Genius before 1900

[svalbard]

Originally Posted by Snowdog

I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.

Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine last night and he also went for Belisarius for pretty much the reasons you mention. To my mind it was the last flourishing of the 'Roman' Empire. The Byzantine way of rule nearly always played against them building upon their gains and it is quite amazing that they lasted as long as they did.

[svalbard]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.

Keep on beating that drum...

[thaddeus6th]

He was no match for a British footwear designer

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Venusian Broon

The Mongolians/steppe nomads being a war-like race where only usually held back when they fought amongst themselves (luckily for the rest of us, that happened a lot.) So the prize for a warlord that could unite such people was a ready made, highly experienced, versatile and huge army. (In fact by uniting the peoples you basically had to go off and campaign) The foundations of the Mongol empire had been built as well - it just needed the right man to take control of it.

Now to be fair, I would say that Alex/Caeser did have it a bit easier - but's it's a bit closer between these and the Khan than 'Ghengis started with nothing' suggests. All exploited the work and foundations of those before them.

You are making it sound like the Mongols was a big empire before Ghengis. Like were like the Greeks,Romans who controlled their world when they ruled.

The part i i highlighted you answered for me why Ghengis Khan than is impressive than he is given credit for in this part of the world. He had built by being the right man to lead. They fell to pieces after him other than Timur,few other powerful Mongol leaders.

Nobody stars with nothing to become a conquerer of big part of the world but he started with less than the ones we compare to him in this thread.

Not like i admire a conquerer who is a mass murderer basicly but you have to give credit. Plus the mongols in his time built military system,officer system that is still exist military today. Like Philip and Parmenion built phalanx based battle system that was unmatched for centuries until the Romans took the Greeks in battles.

[thaddeus6th]

I don't think you can directly compare the Macedonian army of the 4th century BC with the related armies (such as those of Pyrrhus) that the Romans faced later, and especially not the Greek/Macedonian forces the Romans encountered when they conquered Greece and Macedon.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by thaddeus6th

I don't think you can directly compare the Macedonian army of the 4th century BC with the related armies (such as those of Pyrrhus) that the Romans faced later, and especially not the Greek/Macedonian forces the Romans encountered when they conquered Greece and Macedon.

Who did that ? I was saying that the military historians give The Macedoian army of Philip time credit for doing something new, an innovation in warfare that used by others Greeks after them used for long time.

I know the history of late Greek times when Romans came, those states was not as strong military wise as Macedon,Athen,Sparta and co centuries earlier.

[Venusian Broon]

Originally Posted by Connavar

You are making it sound like the Mongols was a big empire before Ghengis. Like were like the Greeks,Romans who controlled their world when they ruled.

Nobody stars with nothing to become a conquerer of big part of the world but he started with less than the ones we compare to him in this thread.

No you didn't quite read what I put down, (or I didn't state it correctly, more likely ) What I mean is that everything was ready for a great man to come along and utilise the Mongol people to take on the world. Everything was already in place.

That's because periodically there were always invasions of vast hordes, generally going from East to West along the steppes - and to do this they required

1) A vast army of exceptional soldiers. A people of farmers do not without the need produce on demand excellent - the Mongols (and Hun and all other steppe peoples before them) were a nomadic warrior people that when united would form practically an unstoppable force.
2) A great man to unite this army and give it a purpose. Before Ghenghis, at least in the written records there was Attila, and there have been other recorded invasions of vast numbers of steppe people in the Indian and even some hint of it in Sumeria/Babylon. Those leaders however are lost to history. The point is that it was a regular occurance - and they tended to win.

The mechanics of steppe invasion are as old as the domestication of ridable horses I'd guess.

The other thing to remember about Ghengis is that he did come from an important family - he was no lowly herdsman, he was a prince of his people - from that respect Napoleon's rise beats him hands down!

Yes I agree that the Ghengis's overall achievements were more impressive - so we are in agreement, and I put that in the last message.

----

All this talk about Ghengis, if it's whetted your appetite for mongol-related telly, I see for those with access to UK telelvision, that BBC4 are showing "Mongol" at 9pm tonight and then there's a Timewatch documentary right afterwards on the real history of the man.

[Connavar]

Important family of nomads who lived in tents before they were rich empire isnt saying much hehe

But i see what you mean and yeah not many starts as low as Napoleon.

[Bowler1]

Did someone mention Napoleon, hang on, two of you did - double WooHoo….

Even after all that Boney only makes my top three, Ghengis Khan is the 1st. He gets top spot not for leading the hordes on a nice pillage and mass murder outing for the weekend, but for setting in place succession after his death and the building blocks of an empire.

Belisarius, never heard of him before and he looks promising.

[Connavar]

Originally Posted by Bowler1

Did someone mention Napoleon, hang on, two of you did - double WooHoo….

Even after all that Boney only makes my top three, Ghengis Khan is the 1st. He gets top spot not for leading the hordes on a nice pillage and mass murder outing for the weekend, but for setting in place succession after his death and the building blocks of an empire.

Belisarius, never heard of him before and he looks promising.

I favor Napoleon as second only to Ghengis Khan. I agree with you in that other thread where Rommel is more votes than Napoelon.

Belisarius i have heard much about and wonder if there is good historical biographies about him.

[Bowler1]

I've been trying to put that other thread behind me, members picking Rommel over Napoelon was really frying my brain cells - 'does not compute!'.

I seem to be within the general concensus on this thread, excepting generals like Belisarius, who was unfortunate enough to have lived through the un-trendy fall of empire, hence the reason I suspect he is unknown to some of us (alright, me!).

[Boaz]

I've read the first and tenth pages of this discussion. I think the term Greatest Military Genius needed to be defined better at the start. In my mind, the military is an arm of the state and should not be used for personal aggrandizement or murderous urges. A genius does not bully weaker neighbors, slaughter innocents, or find glory in bloodshed. A military genius, to my way of thinking, is a commander who successfully defends his people from external aggression, protects foreigners against bloody dictators, or preserves his people from internal oppression. In short, his cause must be just. The preservation of the nation, of the people, should motivate a commander. He needs to be politically aware, but not a political animal.

Though they were capable military commanders and extremely interesting people, I'd rule out Caesar, Alexander, Khan, Napoleon, and many others. They brought pain for their own joy. They brought suffering to increase their fortunes. They brought death for political fame. Don't get me wrong, Caesar's Commentaries are enjoyable reading. Alexander and Khan forged some real cultural bridges between east and west. But in the end, they were meglomaniacal bullies.

Themistocles is a name I'll put forward. I don't know his whole career, but he was the political force in Athens who created a fleet of triremes to stop the Persians. Leonidas gets all the credit for the historic stand at Thermopylae. He should get credit for the sacrifice of the Spartans. The battle focused the cities of Greece to resist the Persians as a whole instead of individually. But the navy of Xerxes would have just flanked and slaughtered the Spartans without blinking an eye, if not for the foresight and leadership of Themistocles. He got the Athenians to build their navy in advance of the invasion. He and the other admirals then sailed north and defeated the Persian navy off shore of Thermopylae... at Artemisium. This allowed Leonidas to continue to defy Xerxes and for the rest of the Greek cities to unite. There was hard fighting and loss still for the Athenians, the loss of Thermopylae forced them to abandon their city to the Persians.

Of course the Athenians had supported an Ionian revolt against the Persian Empire, so Xerxes saw himself as dealing with brigands and terrorists.

Uh...

Hannibal Barca is a name I'd also mention. The Romans forced the confrontation with Carthage in the first Punic War and leveled harsh terms against Carthage. It's my understanding that Hannibal saw Rome as a lethal threat to Carthage... and he was right. His first three victories after crossing the Alps are probably unsurpassed in history. Trebia. Trasimene. Cannae. Those three battles are still textbook examples of terrain, battle readiness, intelligence, concealment, flanking and command control. Maybe Hannibal erred in not besieging Rome... He definitely did not receive proper support from Carthage... And he was never quite able to turn enough of Rome's Italian Allies. But if you look at diagrams of the aforementioned battles, you'll see their all different in tactics and execution. The man adapted to each situation and won brilliantly.

I recognize as an American, I have certain biases. But I also have certain heroes. I hope you have national and cultural heroes, too. My favorite is George Washington.

Was Washington tactically brilliant? Hardly. Was he a great orator? No. But he saw his cause as just and he understood his foe.

Washington knew he was fighting one of the two superpowers of the time. He knew the British were superior to the colonists in training, in equipment, in command, in finances, in political power, and that they were supreme at sea. Washington knew the Americans needed to be superior in morale. His genius was in not allowing the British to slaughter him and his army... and this was no mean feat. If I recall correctly, the U.S. lost every pitched battle of consequence, except Saratoga and the siege of Yorktown. The colonials won ambushes and smaller engagements, but they could not stand up to British regulars and Hessian mercenaries. Washington defied the British as much as he could. His escapes and his counter attacks became legend. If you remember Muhammad Ali's 'rope-a-dope' against George Foreman in 1974's Rumble in the Jungle, then you can imagine Washington's defense against the British. Washington covered up, fell back, and let his opponents punch themselves out while keeping the crowd's favor. I'm not saying it was pretty. Hannibal's victories were tactically pretty, but Washington got the job done.

But what makes him even more of a genius is what came after the end of the AWI. Moses, David, Caesar, Galba, Otho, Vitellius, Pepin the Short, Harold Godwinson, every victorious Chinese general, Tokugawa, Cromwell, Napoleon, Castro, Ghaddafi, Saddam Hussein, Charles Taylor and (almost) everyone else who has militarily commanded a change in government has always assumed direct authoritarian power. But not Washington. He was the commander of a new nation. Instead of proclaiming himself George I of America, he retired. He left politics and the military completely. It is this precedent that was foundational in keeping the people more important than anyone man's ambitions in the U.S. I think he retired just as much because of the precedent it set, than that he just wanted to go home. That's military genius.

Just my two cents.

[thaddeus6th]

I think it's somewhat harsh to judge people from thousands of years ago by today's standards of warfare.

It's also worth pointing out that Alexander was destroying a great enemy that had previously invaded the Hellenistic world and would seek to do so again, if it could. It's a bit unfair to say Rome was a legitimate threat to Carthage (which it was) but Persia was not to Macedon/Greece.

That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.

My knowledge of Themistocles is a bit ropey, but you're right that Leonidas tends to eclipse everything and everyone else from the Persian War. Oh, and there's an Athenian chap (name starts with T, I think) I can't recall who has been overshadowed by Alcibiades in the Peloponnesian War. Alcibiades never won battles without this chap but the chap won battles without him.

I think your great praise of Washington (regarding the aftermath) is slightly excessive. His victory occurred after the French Revolution, when crowned heads were being lopped off and Parliaments and peoples were getting a clear upper hand over monarchs in terms of real power. It would be natural for a man of his time to go for democracy.

However, the US founding fathers (from my limited knowledge on the subject) did a stellar job with the constitution (in stark contrast to the anti-democratic and unaccountable eurocrats of the EU, but that's another story).

[paranoid marvin]

I doubt there is ant military leader that has not found themselves 'justified' with their military action. Just like with Orwell's Ministry of Peace , the Colt 'Peacemaker' and SAC's motto 'Our Profession is Peace', conflict is used to justify the actions of the perpetrator.

[Bowler1]

[QUOTE]
That said, I do agree with you on Hannibal. Plus, unlike Caesar (who did it on a whim to half a million Germanic tribesmen) and Alexander (who did it in perhaps justified retaliation to the Bactrian-Sogdianian rebellion) I don't think he ever committed a massacre of civilians.
[QUOTE]

The above is a modern revisionist view of history. Killing anyone left alive after a battle was normal until more or less modern history. The only POW's taken were those that could later be ransomed and for the poor serfs pressed into action it was usually a swift end. Very much a case of the spoils went to the victor. Hannibal was like anyother commander at the time, all were put to the sword. I ask you what are civilians and if you were Caesar deep into the Gaul lands, just who were civilians. Caesar would have looked upon that question in complete confusion I would imagine. For Caesar, he had to crush all of modern France under the Roman sandal, he had to ensure his victory beyond doubt. Anything else so far from the safety of Rome would have been sheer folly. Kill or be killed, life was short and cheap, those were the times Ceasar lived through - there were no civilians......