rollo1066
Warlord
Based on the size of his conquests and sucess against foes with higher technology (at least at first) I voted for the great Khan. Also the fact his empire lasted for about 140 years after his death is quite impressive.
Based on the size of his conquests and sucess against foes with higher technology (at least at first) I voted for the great Khan. Also the fact his empire lasted for about 140 years after his death is quite impressive.
Or you haven't heard of them.
Hannibal for performing so well at such a massive disadvantage
Or you haven't heard of them.They are the true top generals. Everyone else sucks.
At Zama, Hannibal had numerical advantage. Yet he lost.
Definitely the latter. And, as I wrote before, some of those from the list are actually overrated.
For example Caesar - he was not a brilliant tactician, he won his victories by stubbornness and quality of his forces rather than military genius.
If Caesar and Alexander the Great or Hannibal met in battle (with armies of comparable strength, of course), I have no doubts who would win.
At Zama, Hannibal had numerical advantage. Yet he lost.
You seriously believe I've never heard of Caesar, etc before?
The thing about Napoleon was his refusal to accept the norms of period European diplomacy. Sure, some other rulers bent the rules, but he shattered them into little tiny pieces. That was what defined him, after all, as a soldier and a ruler: his inability to accept limits on his power. The territorial and dynastic revolutions he brought to Europe was unparalleled in the continent's history; nothing like it had happened since the Roman Empire, and nothing like it has happened since.Dachs, I think that you are being a bit unfair about Napoleon. He was for the most part applying the standard dynastic puppeteering techniques of his predecessors. I mean, Louis XIIII was a treacherous warmongering scumbag too. And now that I think of it, so were most french kings before him. Napoleon just happened to me far more successful militarily, do he did it more.
I'm not condemning Alexander for not having been Antigonos Doson. He was what he was. And what he was, was not a statesman, in the same sense that he was not a philosopher or scientist.innonimatu said:Alexander's lack of statesmanship too was not that uncommon for his age. Stable monarchies didn't had much of a tradition in Greece, and we was a greek ruling a state built on greeks. He actually managed to produce a successor at least, even if he also managed to kill himself (get killed?) to soon (and if not sooner it wasn't for lack of trying).
The thing about Napoleon was his refusal to accept the norms of period European diplomacy. Sure, some other rulers bent the rules, but he shattered them into little tiny pieces. That was what defined him, after all, as a soldier and a ruler: his inability to accept limits on his power. The territorial and dynastic revolutions he brought to Europe was unparalleled in the continent's history; nothing like it had happened since the Roman Empire, and nothing like it has happened since.
No. I don't have a moral judgment on Napoleon for breaking the rules of warfare at the time. He was a man with excellent gambler's instincts that paid off for him for many years.Your really gonna hate on Napoleon for "breaking the norms" yet in another instance celebrate Grant and Sherman's two pronged disrespect of the norms of mid-19th c. warfare? The Union's two greatest generals broke almost every rule of warfare from prisoner exchanges to treatment of civilians and private property (and I don't mean slaves!) yet they are the good guys and Napoleon is a bad guy because he lost?
No. I don't have a moral judgment on Napoleon for breaking the rules of warfare at the time. He was a man with excellent gambler's instincts that paid off for him for many years.
I'm not really even making a moral judgment on Napoleon for breaking the rules of international relations of the time. It's just that his refusal to follow those rules doomed his empire to destruction. A man whose entire foreign relations policy made the overextension and collapse of his empire inevitable cannot be considered a "statesman". Napoleon's policy for Europe was effectively the same as Hitler's was; the only difference between them was Hitler's desire to commit genocide, something that nobody in Napoleon's day would have even begun to contemplate.
So there really isn't any comparison at all with men like Grant or Sherman. But you knew that.
I see what you did there. You should be in standup.But what choice did he have other than to create a new rule book. The established order would never allow any serious peace a Napoleon I France nor suffer its existence for longer than they had to. Playing by the rules would have gotten him nowhere.
At Zama, Hannibal had numerical advantage. Yet he lost.
And this is, of course, just one example of many (for example in 1941 he was responsible for the disaster in the Kiev Pocket).