Top 15 campaigns in Military History

[BOTP]

I can go on for days about the myhts of the Post-Marian reforms, but I'd be off topics, so I'll only comment on this quote

in structure, yes- hannibal was markedlly less orginzed, and had far worse moral and motivation- only hannibal, and th eother carthaginains were any real motivation tot he troops- however, the troosp themselves were superior to what Rome was using at the time-

Incorrect. Although Roman Army was rather unprepared at the onset of the war, it became the greatest military machine of his era, and the Legionary system was such that it would be difficult to defeat. Hannibal, on the other hand, had the worst possible make-up of an army in the ancient world, many different subjected and tribes that not only had different beliefs and nationalities, but different languages. They were vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped, and poorly supplied.

 

[Xen]

I can go on for days about the myhts of the Post-Marian reforms, but I'd be off topics, so I'll only comment on this quote

then we shall go on for days, and it will be off topic- makes little bother to me; it olny emphisizes my point on hannibal not deservign to be on that list.

Incorrect. Although Roman Army was rather unprepared at the onset of the war, it became the greatest military machine of his era,

beign the bes tmilitary machine is a differtn thign altogether for having the best troops- the ability to wag war, and abilit to fight are sperate and disticnt entities

and the Legionary system was such that it would be difficult to defeat.

your correct- but witht he right troops, obviouslly it was- until the marian reforms brough on an army that passed expectation fo its victory to defeat ratio- overshadowing even the rpeublican era legioary, never mind the fact that in trianign, equipment and motivation the post marian refrom trooper had the edge

Hannibal, on the other hand, had the worst possible make-up of an army in the ancient world,

not troop wise- troop wise he had the botht he best infantry -spanish scutarii-, and the best cavalry of two disting types; berber light, and carthgainan medium cavalry

many different subjected and tribes that not only had different beliefs and nationalities, but different languages. They were vastly outnumbered and ill-equipped, and poorly supplied.

ypur right on that- until hannibal go to souther italy, and after hannibal enagged his firs tfew roma amries- where he got better equipment via pilalging the dead, and in southe ritaly he got supplies, and even soem re-inforcfments form the local roman resenting populace- nothign signifiicant, an dnothign all that good, but at least it was somthing.

*I figured it worth mention that i am now retireing for the night, so dont expect any replies for the next few hours

 

[Andu Indorin]

BTOP, well composed and well-illustrated.

And, of course, a few differences of opinion and clarification.

15) Wouldn't put it in the top fifteen. Against the oft befuddled Bragg, the strategy worked the first time. But Rosecran's employed it again and reinforced Bragg struck back (though somewhat ineptly). The result for Rosecrans was Chickmagua and a nervous breakdown. Had Lee or the late Jackson commanded in the west, Rosecran's operation would have ended in disaster.

14. Harclius's campaigns. A good choice. No. 3 in my list.

13. Spanish Conquest. Not really a campaign, but Cortez's conquest of Mexico certainly deserves consideration, far more so than Pizzaro's bumbling butchery in Peru.

11. Scott's Invasion. Also provided the example for Grant's Vicksburg campaign, and later Sherman's March to the Sea. As such, I'd rate it higher in the annals of American military operations. No. 5 in my list.

10. Rommel's Campaign should be referred to as the North African Campaign ... things didn't go all that well for the Germans in Tunisia.

9. Not really a campaign as such ... throw in the breakout and race though France and Belgium, then you have a campaign.

7. 1940 Blitzkrieg. An overwhelming victory marred by the failure on into Dunkirk at the earliest opportune time. Nonetheless, No. 2 in my list.

5. Frederick's Wars. Any campaign in particular???

4. Mongol Conquests. Again, not really a campaign. But their campaign against Europe culminating in Liegnitz and Mohacs certainly should be considered in the top five ever. No.1 in my list.

2. It's difficult to separate Hannibal campaign to Cannae and Scipio's counterthrusts in Spain and Africa in terms of their brilliance -- except for the fact the Hannibal started it all. Hannibal's Italian campaign, however, failed to defeat to Rome. Consequently, I rate Scipio's campaigns higher ... but Cannae remains No. 1 on the "most decisive battles" list.

As for alternatives:
a) Wellington's Vittoria Campaign of 1813. Somewhat obscured by the War of German Liberation and the Battle of the Nations, Wellington's 1813 campaign is a model study of the indirect approach and compares very favorably with the opening of Napoleon's 1805 campaign. No. 4 in my list.

b) Greene's Southern Campaign of 1780-1781. While failing to win any battle, Greene's operations strategically defeated Cornwallis and set the stage for Yorktown.

c) Montrose's 1643-1644 Scotland Campaign: the Year of Miracles. Still a model of irregular warfare, and somewhat comparable to Jackson's Valley Campaign.

btw, Battles (Greatest Strategy - Worst Strategy) provides a similar discussion.

 

[BOTP]

@ XEn, look at the statistics, and you will see that Hannibal's invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War seemed to be completely suicidal in nature.Rome wanted to fight the wars on the soil of its opponent. Rome also wanted the destruction of the Carthaginian empire and to expand (something that is clear in the way the initiated previous wars, the treaty with Saguntum and later wars). Rome had made that clear, not in words, but in deeds in the previous century (Rome always fought "defensive wars" during its existence, however flimsy the pretext). He also knew that he had a party in the Carthaginian Senate that was opposed to the war, almost solely because they were afraid of or opposed to the Barcid family. Which consequently left Hannibal on his own (in the end not that dissimilar as the situation that arose between Rommel in North Africa and the Italian High Command).

So Hannibal knew he had to fight, basically had to do it on his own, and had to take the fight to the Romans. This last part in order to prevent Roman troops from being sent to the Carthaginian lands... Yet it was also clear that the Romans controlled the seas, and that it was all but impossible to regain control, so the sole option to get to Italy was by land, through hostile territory, and live of the land. He also knew that using the coastal road to pass the Alps would mean a certain death, as he could be easily blocked, attacked from sea, and have troops landed in his rear. He also knew that he would not have the logistical capability to do it on his own, and mount a siege of Rome. So he saw as his best option to try and dissolve the Roman confederation, which was a reasonable assumption if one realizes that Rome had fought until recently numerous wars against its allies, and would do so again in the future (and actually lost in many respects). If he gained enough Italian allies, he would have the support and possibilities to lay siege to Rome.

So Hannibal decided that he would have to out march the Romans, get into Italy before the Romans got into Spain, and destroy the Roman armies in order to both force troops to be recalled from abroad, and dissolve the Roman confederation. And he did so in a masterly fashion, that has been bettered by no-one... (closest IMHO actually comes Xenophon with the withdrawal of his 10,000). He marched with maximum speed, through largely hostile territory with, if taken all into account, not that many losses at all... and basically was in Italy before the Romans knew what had happened. On a tactical level, he was awesome. He used the vulnerabilities of both the armies he opposed, and the commanders of those armies. His infantry was largely inferior (sole exception being the core of Spanish troops), and not that reliable, and his only edge was his cavalry, which he put to very good use. All in all, he killed roughly over 100,000 Romans, and inflicted a casualty rate (killed or captured) of IIRC over 80% upon his enemy. He did so using imaginative tactics... his sole miscalculation was the fact that the Roman allies mostly stayed loyal to Rome, even after the massive defeats... Yet he had Rome stretched to its breaking point... One of the reasons the Romans refused battle after Cannae was the fact that they could not afford any more big defeats, or they would be forced to give up their plan of operations, and have to recall their army form Spain.

In major battles he was outnumbered by the Romans, stranded in a hostile land with no hope of retreat, reinforcement or even supply. Strategically it was a great move because the Romans expected the War to be fought in Iberia, and they dispatched a force to fight him there... Hannibal then crossed the Alps (no small achievement in itself because of Barbarian tribes and the rugged terrain) and invaded Northern Italy, forcing his enemy onto the defensive. Hannibal also eluded and defeated three separate armies to trap him in their own territory. The idea of marching overland from Italy to Spain was a truly original thought, and put the seat of the war firmly in enemy territory. In total Hannibal waged war in Italy for Sixteen years with dwindling numbers of the same group of men, fefectors from the other Italian people were his only meathod of re-enforcing his numbers. Ff course in hindsight it looks bad because he was ultimately unsuccessful, but how can you not call this greatness?

Scipio campaigns were indeed impressive, but he was never able to match the genius that Hanibal had. Scipio reversed the situation because the reversed Hanibal's move. Sneaking into Iberia, he attacked the Carthaginians there. In the north he would have the support of the locals, who had only just been subdued by Hannibal, which would give him a very secure base of operations. Scipio was a better general than the relatively tactically weak generals that Hanibal had stationed in Iberia to protect Carthaginian holdings. Furthermore, Carthagian Iberia was tired from many years of war. It wasn't that hard to defeat the people in Iberia, they were tired of war and easy to submit to Roman gold and " luvin' ". While Hannibal was busy trying to break the stalemate the annoying consul Marcellus had imposed in Italia, Scipio had a great time laying waste to the Carthaginian colonies in Iberia.

Not only that is my problem, but again inferior troops? What? Most of the Roman army was better equipped than the Carthaginian soldiers. A Roman Army is "point and click" because the troops were so well trained that, if you can imagine it, they can likely do it. Those guys could march and maneuver like no other. Romans had standardized training, and it showed. No one else had it again for 1,500 years. The Roman 'steamroller' was very hard for the relatively lightly armed Carthaginian center to stop, and only a general of Hannibal's quality could truly do so, and Kartágo only had one of those. Thus, the Romans could break the Carthaginian center and mop up the flanks that remained. To top that off, Italia was a place that had a far higher attrition rate than Iberia, apparently. This might've been caused by Marcellus in Italia, but maybe also because of other factors. It was because of this that it was not very hard for Scipio to trod around Iberia at his leisure, only having to worry about major battles. Also, Italia was fully under Roman control, while only the southern, Mediterranean side of Iberia was under Carthaginian control. The Gallic tribes to the north also supported the Romans, as did the Celtiberan cities to the north of the Carthaginian-Iberian border.

Furthermore, the Roman Senate actually supported its "men at the front", while the Carthaginian Senate was scared that Hannibal would misuse his position and become dictator. In other words, they were scared that their asses would land on the street instead of on a plush cushion. They convinced the rest of the oligarchy of Kartágo to send as little support to Hanibal as they could. And even without support from Carthage, he was tantalizingly close, yet so far. His sole, and very understandable miscalculation was the fact that the vast majority of the Roman allies stayed loyal to Rome. Hannibal knew as well that Rome would destroy Carthago in due time, if he was not the one to take out Rome.A few different factors would have tipped the scale and the 2nd Punic War would have had a different outcome. THough he overcame quite a few impossibilities during his camaign, which makes it the best, but if you want to argue about the outcome of the war, all I can say is that he would have overcame the ultimate impossibility.

 

[BOTP]

2. It's difficult to separate Hannibal campaign to Cannae and Scipio's counterthrusts in Spain and Africa in terms of their brilliance -- except for the fact the Hannibal started it all. Hannibal's Italian campaign, however, failed to defeat to Rome. Consequently, I rate Scipio's campaigns higher ... but Cannae remains No. 1 on the "most decisive battles" list.

To recapitulate why I think Hannibal's campaign is greater than Scipio: [1] Hannibal had to deal with far greater difficulties then Scipio on all levels. Yet the results he achieved have only been surpassed by very few, and Alexander was the only one in antiquity.[2] During his offensive in Italy, Hannibal laid down some of the basics of every military operation since, and, especially what he achieved at the tactical level, has been the goal of every commander since. and [3] Although it was an eventaul failure, he overcame many possibilites, surviving in the enemy homeland for nearly a generation, despite being outnumbered and trapped between larger amies, and with dwindlings numbers and absolutely no reinforcements or supply whatsoever. Its a wonder he nearly suceeded.

b) Greene's Southern Campaign of 1780-1781. While failing to win any battle, Greene's operations strategically defeated Cornwallis and set the stage for Yorktown.

I was considering this campaign, but then again, there's always the critcism of being too American. This sounds similiar to Rosecrans' Tulluma campaign though doesnt it? In that case, I'd rate them the same

 

[Xen]

@ XEn, look at the statistics, and you will see that Hannibal's invasion of Italy during the Second Punic War seemed to be completely suicidal in nature.Rome wanted to fight the wars on the soil of its opponent. Rome also wanted the destruction of the Carthaginian empire and to expand (something that is clear in the way the initiated previous wars, the treaty with Saguntum and later wars). Rome had made that clear, not in words, but in deeds in the previous century (Rome always fought "defensive wars" during its existence, however flimsy the pretext). He also knew that he had a party in the Carthaginian Senate that was opposed to the war, almost solely because they were afraid of or opposed to the Barcid family. Which consequently left Hannibal on his own (in the end not that dissimilar as the situation that arose between Rommel in North Africa and the Italian High Command).

So Hannibal knew he had to fight, basically had to do it on his own, and had to take the fight to the Romans. [/quote[ exactley- and he failed to do that effectivlly- he fougth three battles, and then he lost his campaign in italy, because the Roman stratigists simply out witted him- they refused to give him (hannibal) what he needed to win his campaign, and that was firm feild battles.

This last part in order to prevent Roman troops from being sent to the Carthaginian lands... Yet it was also clear that the Romans controlled the seas, and that it was all but impossible to regain control, so the sole option to get to Italy was by land, through hostile territory, and live of the land. He also knew that using the coastal road to pass the Alps would mean a certain death, as he could be easily blocked, attacked from sea, and have troops landed in his rear. He also knew that he would not have the logistical capability to do it on his own, and mount a siege of Rome. So he saw as his best option to try and dissolve the Roman confederation, which was a reasonable assumption if one realizes that Rome had fought until recently numerous wars against its allies, and would do so again in the future (and actually lost in many respects). If he gained enough Italian allies, he would have the support and possibilities to lay siege to Rome.

and agian, he failed at this endeavor- not even the samnites, who woudl eventually rebell on thier own, later during the social wars, saw fit to join hannibal.

So Hannibal decided that he would have to out march the Romans, get into Italy before the Romans got into Spain, and destroy the Roman armies in order to both force troops to be recalled from abroad, and dissolve the Roman confederation.

and agian, he failed at this- which is the reason why he dosetn deserve to be on tthe list- your worship of hannibal dosent mean he was the all great general- he was a battlefeild genious, and a daring commander- but he was no grand stratagist.

And he did so in a masterly fashion, that has been bettered by no-one... (closest IMHO actually comes Xenophon with the withdrawal of his 10,000). He marched with maximum speed, through largely hostile territory with, if taken all into account, not that many losses at all... and basically was in Italy before the Romans knew what had happened. On a tactical level, he was awesome. He used the vulnerabilities of both the armies he opposed, and the commanders of those armies. His infantry was largely inferior (sole exception being the core of Spanish troops),

not really- the spanish troops were awesome, but the drilled infantry of mercenaries carthage was using was hardley somthign to snuff either mind you- as while they on thie rown could copare ot a Rome legionary, they were more then enough to be able to put hannibal in similer situation, infantrywise

and his only edge was his cavalry, which he put to very good use.

his cavalry, and spanish infantry both had the edge in both equpiment, and trianing

his sole miscalculation was the fact that the Roman allies mostly stayed loyal to Rome, even after the massive defeats... Yet he had Rome stretched to its breaking point...

not at all true- throuought the wars rome maintianed a multiple legion garrison of Sicilly, an dofcourse kept the iberian front well manned and maintianed, and still had enough troops left over to garrison the loyal parts of Italy

One of the reasons the Romans refused battle after Cannae was the fact that they could not afford any more big defeats,

not really- they just wiused up and saw that hanniabl could be defeated on the open battl efeild- which is whty they continued to persue hannibal, but by using attrition warfare

or they would be forced to give up their plan of operations, and have to recall their army form Spain.

more likelyl call ion the Sicillian legions, which woudl have been a disaster, since that woudl leave the sicillian seige yards open for invasion which woudl have given hannibal seige capabilties- unless he had gone to the trouble to make seige weapons in southern italy, which was perfectlyl possible, but somthign he didint bother to do.

and thats all assuming Rome couldnt find the manpower to equipp more legions; thats possible, but not extreasmlly likelly, theyed just create mor epenal legions- equipment was no problem, hannibal hardley controlled the width and bredth fo the country side, and resource operaitons essentially cotinued as needed

In major battles he was outnumbered by the Romans, stranded in a hostile land with no hope of retreat, reinforcement or even supply. Strategically it was a great move because the Romans expected the War to be fought in Iberia

and you seem to be forgetting, the war WAS fought in iberia- hannibal made a bloody crusade into italy that had no lasting effect other then to make the Roman better tacticians, and nothing else- it was the Romans, who waged a true war in Iberia, taking cities, and gathering allies, who waged the real "war" in the second punic war

, and they dispatched a force to fight him there... Hannibal then crossed the Alps (no small achievement in itself because of Barbarian tribes and the rugged terrain) and invaded Northern Italy, forcing his enemy onto the defensive. Hannibal also eluded and defeated three separate armies to trap him in their own territory. The idea of marching overland from Italy to Spain was a truly original thought, and put the seat of the war firmly in enemy territory. In total Hannibal waged war in Italy for Sixteen years with dwindling numbers of the same group of men, fefectors from the other Italian people were his only meathod of re-enforcing his numbers. Ff course in hindsight it looks bad because he was ultimately unsuccessful, but how can you not call this greatness?

I never said it wasnt- but you have to face facts- any one unsuccessful in acheiving any of thier strategic necessities for victory, no matte rhow brilliant the battle feild commander, nor how how brave or adventerous the man, cannot have a place on a list of great camapaigns- he failed.

Scipio campaigns were indeed impressive, but he was never able to match the genius that Hanibal had. Scipio reversed the situation because the reversed Hanibal's move. Sneaking into Iberia, he attacked the Carthaginians there.

he hardley snuck- the carthaginains knew point balnk he was thier, and were expecting him

In the north he would have the support of the locals, who had only just been subdued by Hannibal, which would give him a very secure base of operations. Scipio was a better general than the relatively tactically weak generals that Hanibal had stationed in Iberia to protect Carthaginian holdings. Furthermore, Carthagian Iberia was tired from many years of war. It wasn't that hard to defeat the people in Iberia, they were tired of war and easy to submit to Roman gold and " luvin' ". While Hannibal was busy trying to break the stalemate the annoying consul Marcellus had imposed in Italia, Scipio had a great time laying waste to the Carthaginian colonies in Iberia.

indeed- if hannibal truelly had an eye for the bigger picture, he woudl have expected a roman counter attack, and statione dbetter comamnder sin iberia- he didnt, and then once trapped in a stalemate in italy, the war fell apart fo rthe carthaginians

Not only that is my problem, but again inferior troops? What? Most of the Roman army was better equipped than the Carthaginian soldiers. A Roman Army is "point and click" because the troops were so well trained that, if you can imagine it, they can likely do it. Those guys could march and maneuver like no other.

your right- but that dosetn stop the equipment fo troops themselves, in this case, firmlly on hannibals side, being far superio impliment sof war- added with the skill fo the troops,a dn the fact that spanish infantry- whos movemnt s were fluid due to thie rnon ridgeid orginization, and the fact that the other elite of Hannibals army was cavalry, makes it clear that even in manuverbaility, the romans were outclassed

Romans had standardized training, and it showed. No one else had it again for 1,500 years.

indeed- but spansih warriors, and berber cavalry trianed from child brith to be warriors

The Roman 'steamroller' was very hard for the relatively lightly armed Carthaginian center to stop, and only a general of Hannibal's quality could truly do so, and Kartágo only had one of those.

Scipio, despite what you say, was a commander whom could match hannibal; he successfully took on the Iberian infantry. partially by beign wise enough to see what they were using was more effective then what the romans were using at the time, an dpartially be being a leval headed commander, who took advatage of a situation as he saw it

Thus, the Romans could break the Carthaginian center and mop up the flanks that remained. To top that off, Italia was a place that had a far higher attrition rate than Iberia, apparently. This might've been caused by Marcellus in Italia, but maybe also because of other factors. It was because of this that it was not very hard for Scipio to trod around Iberia at his leisure, only having to worry about major battles.

Scipio fought several major actions in Spain

Also, Italia was fully under Roman control, while only the southern, Mediterranean side of Iberia was under Carthaginian control. The Gallic tribes to the north also supported the Romans, as did the Celtiberan cities to the north of the Carthaginian-Iberian border.

and rome used this to its full advatge- hannibal had the oppertunity to get gallic tribnes on his side from northert italy, and he missed it, he had th eoppertunity to get the illyirans on hsi side, and he missed that too, and he finally missed his chance to swing Itallian allies on his- all he got in the end, as I have said before, were some of the souther greek cities

Furthermore, the Roman Senate actually supported its "men at the front", while the Carthaginian Senate was scared that Hannibal would misuse his position and become dictator. In other words, they were scared that their asses would land on the street instead of on a plush cushion. They convinced the rest of the oligarchy of Kartágo to send as little support to Hanibal as they could. And even without support from Carthage, he was tantalizingly close, yet so far.

so far is very right- he never came close to achiening any thing he needed to win the war.

His sole, and very understandable miscalculation was the fact that the vast majority of the Roman allies stayed loyal to Rome. Hannibal knew as well that Rome would destroy Carthago in due time, if he was not the one to take out Rome.A few different factors would have tipped the scale and the 2nd Punic War would have had a different outcome.

a few? how about the enitre war

THough he overcame quite a few impossibilities during his camaign, which makes it the best, but if you want to argue about the outcome of the war, all I can say is that he would have overcame the ultimate impossibility.

no, he wouldnt have; the only way carthage woudl have won was to take back its supply base in Iberia, and stop fooling around in italy, where they woudl never get a true victory, because the romans woudl just deny them of large scale battles.

 

[Provolution]

Let us develop objective criteria for measuring these "Top 15 global military campaigns", so we can measure up by factual comparisons why these should be ranked there.
I would also extend the list to become 20, and we also need to balance out the time-period, the technologies involved, as well as geography, terrain and kill ratios.

 

[allhailIndia]

There are a whole range of campaigns from Asia excluded in the list and inordinate importance given to just two wars, The American Civil War and the Second World War.

I would think that this list should also include the campaign of Raja Raja and his son Rajendra Chola, who between them conquered all of South India (everything south of the Vindhya range), Sri Lanka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands, Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula as well. Surely such a campaign from the rulers of a kingdom no larger than England is worth mentioning.

What about the campaign of Akbar to retake the old Mughal possession and then add some more. Since the age of 16, till his 40's, Akbar, managed to re-conquer all of North India, as far east as Bengal, as far south as the Yamuna river and as far west as Kabul...surely that does some taking given the multiplicity of kingdoms and peoples involved.

How about the campaign of Samudragupta which extended the Mauryan empire (restricted mainly to the Gangetic delta and parts of the Plains), to all of what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, including some parts of what is now Afghanistan?

Somebody mentioned Japan's Pacific campaign too, and I would think that Saladin's campaigns against the Crusaders would merit some mention. Maybe this list ought to be expanded further to include some more non-European campaigns.

 

[Provolution]

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

 

[Bugfatty300]

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

Tiny compared to some European and a couple of Asian conflicts (which is nothing to brag about) but it was the largest bloodiest war in the Western Hemisphere and the most important and bloody war in American history than any European mass slaughter that it was ivolved in. So why shouldn't American focus on its civil war? Perhaps not on a Global scale comparison such as this, but that is far from any good reason to degrade and minamalize the American civil war
.

 

[Andu Indorin]

There are a whole range of campaigns from Asia excluded in the list and inordinate importance given to just two wars, The American Civil War and the Second World War.

I would think that this list should also include the campaign of Raja Raja and his son Rajendra Chola, who between them conquered all of South India (everything south of the Vindhya range), Sri Lanka, Andaman and Nicobar Islands, Lakshadweep Islands, Java, Sumatra and parts of the Malay peninsula as well. Surely such a campaign from the rulers of a kingdom no larger than England is worth mentioning.

What about the campaign of Akbar to retake the old Mughal possession and then add some more. Since the age of 16, till his 40's, Akbar, managed to re-conquer all of North India, as far east as Bengal, as far south as the Yamuna river and as far west as Kabul...surely that does some taking given the multiplicity of kingdoms and peoples involved.

How about the campaign of Samudragupta which extended the Mauryan empire (restricted mainly to the Gangetic delta and parts of the Plains), to all of what is now India, Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka, including some parts of what is now Afghanistan?

Somebody mentioned Japan's Pacific campaign too, and I would think that Saladin's campaigns against the Crusaders would merit some mention. Maybe this list ought to be expanded further to include some more non-European campaigns.

What are the precise strategic and tactical achievements of these Indian campaigns that would merit consideration against, say, the Mongol European campaign? I'm sadly ignorant of Indian history but would certainly be interested in learning more.

Of the Japanese conquests, I would offhand say that their conquests in southeast Asia culminating in the capture of Singapore is certainly worth consideration. I'm not sure about Saladin, however, insofar as his campaigns were primarily against the already weakened Crusader states.

Or Non US Civil War campaigns, it is just national fervor and pride in over-selling the Civil War, which is as tiring as and as relatively unimportant as Elian Gonzales at this point.
Europes wars do have merit in getting the majority of wars, primarily due to imperialism 1500-1960, and then to being on the crossroads of war to Asia and Africa for millenia.
The tiny Civil War of 600 000 deaths cannot measure up to the sum of European wars.
However, India, China and Japans wars should be added in, as well as the Arab, Ottoman and Russian campaigns. The Norman Knights conquest of Sicily is also a good read. However, I have seen very very few well done Latin American campaigns.

My, my ... a tiny war of 600,000 deaths. How can one respond to such a statement that ignores so much history. ... Except to say that, like most Americans, I know exactly which of my ancestors fought in that conflict and for what cause they fought. Not surprising, I find comment completely tasteless and personally insulting.

 

[Provolution]

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns. As if some magical divine glow made this war more glorious than any other. Reminds me of those claiming Israel is the chosen nation, or Germany for that matter. Try to balance out the American Civil War on a global scalre with real comparisons on merits. 600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal.
What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance. Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

Get real, 4 out of 15 best campaigns in the world should take place in the Civil War 1861-65? And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

 

[Andu Indorin]

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns. As if some magical divine glow made this war more glorious than any other. ... Try to balance out the American Civil War on a global scale with real comparisons on merits. 600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal. ... What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance.

To begin with, the American Civil War is the single, most decisive event in the comparatively brief history of our nation, the event that has done more to shape the identity of the American people, for better and for worse. An examination of the election map of 2004 helps illustrate the extent to which the United States remains divided along sectional lines. To compare the American Civil War to McDonald's or Disney (two institutions whose corporate practices I happen to abhor) is demeaning. It is certainly not about glory; it is certianly not about the butchery and bloodletting.

As for historical importance, as most historians recognize, Southern independence would have been an event with dramatic global consequences; the usual argument being that the United States does not intervene in either of the two World Wars. The War of the Triple Alliance may have been more horrific, and given the absurd causes of that war, more tragic. But certainly not a conflict with as dramatic global consequences.

Get real, 4 out of 15 best campaigns in the world should take place in the Civil War 1861-65? And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

And, for myself, I do not entirely agree with BOTP list. I my opinion, only Jackson's Valley Campaign merits inclusion in a top 15 list; as for the strategic and tactical merits of that campaign, it certainly earned the attention Rommel and other German generals who went against the European consensus of the time that the American Civil War was a "war of amateur armies." As for Scott's Mexican campaign, which I rank as the greatest campaign in U.S. history, Wellington himself called it the greatest operation of the century (i.e., over Napoleon's achievements -- though I suppose we can expect that Wellington to be somewhat subjective on that account).

Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

What can you expect from someone that you presume to know but in reality lack any factual information concerning. For example, how did I vote in the last election, and why? What is my view of how the next four years under President Bush will shape the future of the United States, and how will this impact the rest of the world? How many languages do I speak and how many do I read? How many countries of the world have I had the honor to visit and explore? How many mountains have I climbed? And above all, if there is such a thing a "typical" American, would I be considered one?

 

[Bugfatty300]

I am just tired of Americans overselling their Civil War as it should be Mcdonalds, Disney or some other Franchise, especially in a global comparison like this, with a disproportionate high number of American campaigns.

Boo hoo for you.

Its not like BOTP is trying to publish this in your school text book. I mean if you take this stuff so personally then why do you subscribe to a history forum where there are alot of Americans? So yeah the Civil War is going to take up alot discussions and priority. Thats a concept that you just you havn't grasped yet.

600 000 is a lot of human beings, but does not warrant an agressive over-selling as I see all the time. Another "over-sold" conflict is the one of Israel. A normal year in Sao Paolo is more lethal.

Agressive over-selling? What are you talking about? What instances on this forum is so "agressive?"

BOTP's post? Please.

Americans are going to focus on it's civil war. Why? Because it was the most important 4 years in our history. Just the same as other nations do.

What about the Civil war of Rwanda, or to take a more bloody war in Western Hemisphere, the War of the Triple Alliance.

Last time I checked I wasn't Rowandan or Paraguayan or Brizilian or even Argentinian. I would wrather read a book about Willian Sherman or the Seven Pines Battle than one on either of those wars. If that makes me an unsensitive flag-waving American, then I guess thats what I am.

And btw, If you want to keep insisting that death tolls make wars more important than others, the Triple Alliance was not the bloodiest in the Western Hemisphere.
War of Triple Alliance

Of course, what can I expect from someone just passing a tense presidential election and hold an average of one language per citizen, with only 20 % of the population holding passports.

I'm sorry, nevermind then. I sort of thought we were discussing an historical topic worth a serious side note. Not childishly resorting to bashing us and our country. (This sort of explains your reasoning)

And if we disagree with you, that is personally insulting etc etc. Even though you are a superpower, the history is already written, and all the money and defense budgets in the world will not buy a new one.

We are not the ones going above and beyond the subject to insult us and our country as you just did--Go to Off-topic if you want to talk about this crap. As I said before I thought we were seriously discussing something here.

 

[alex994]

BOTP, i congratulate on your most excellant List even if i have several disagreements. And to those who argue with BOTP *cough cough* why don't you make your own list?

 

[BOTP]

@Provolution

Yes, I am personally a Civil War fan, and if that makes me some flag-waving, bias, and insensitive, redneck then so be it. We all have vices, and some may be worse than others. I just happen to like mine though

 

[allhailIndia]

What are the precise strategic and tactical achievements of these Indian campaigns that would merit consideration against, say, the Mongol European campaign? I'm sadly ignorant of Indian history but would certainly be interested in learning more.

Of the Japanese conquests, I would offhand say that their conquests in southeast Asia culminating in the capture of Singapore is certainly worth consideration. I'm not sure about Saladin, however, insofar as his campaigns were primarily against the already weakened Crusader states.

Raja Raja and Rajendra undertook a naval campaign which wasn't matched till the Japanese campaign in Asia. They were also the first and perhaps the last Indian rulers to undertake an overseas campaign which spread Indian culture and religion as far South as Java in the Indonesian archipelago. They dealt huge blows to the Arabs dominating trade with Europe for the next couple of centuries. The Cholas are better remembered than the other major south Indian kingdoms, primarily because of their conquests which brought them enormous wealth and sparked of a semi-Golden Age for Southern India which saw the construction of massive temples, the flourishing of art esp bronzework and great works of literature being written/

Samudragupta was the first conqueror on such a scale and re-established a pan India empire for the first time after the fall of the Mauryas. His conquests laid the foundation for one of the best periods of INdian history when art, culture and learning flourished. Samudragupta himself is described as being an avid musician and music lover, and his reign, followed by his son, Chandragupta II, is remembered for the achievements in sculpture, metallurgy, and literature among many other things. IT was during this period that the Iron pillar was constructed at Mehrauli, which despite being in the open for 1700 years, has not rusted at all.

Akbar's re-conquest of India following the collapse of Sher Shah Suri's rule in India is perhaps the most significant of the three campaigns mentioned. Like Samudragupta before him, and his grandfather Babur, Akbar ran through all of North India to re-establish the Mughal Empire when things were slipping into another anarchic state. Akbar, however, is most remembered for the religious tolerance and harmony which marked his rule and was a hallmark of Mughal rule in India till their ultimate downfall in 1857. Akbar's reforms are too numerous to put down in one post and are better recounted in an article, but suffice to say that the British took a lot of lessons from him as to how to rule India despite being foreigners.

 

[allhailIndia]

I should also mention perhaps, he Indian Army's win over the Pakistani Army in what is now Bangladesh, resulting in a 3 week war which saw Pakistan split in half and half its army surrender to Indian forces in what is now Bangladesh. Also very significant since India signed the Mutual Cooperation pact with USSR just before the war, in case the US tried to intervene, cementing Indo-Russian ties which have remained strong to this day.

 

[Provolution]

ok here is my top 25 (to match the much better top 25 military feats list)

Europe (Greco-Roman Pre 1492) 5

Caesars Campaign in Gaul (Rome)
Alexanders Campaign, Egypt, Persia, Afghanistan, India (Greek)
Belisarius Campaign for Imperial Reconquest of Italy and North Africa (Byzantine)
Henry Vs Campaign in France (Agincourt, Crecy, several sieges etc)
Reconquista, Spanish Reconquest of Spain

Sino-Indian-Mongol-Arab-Ottoman Pre 1492, 5

The military campaign of Qin, unifying China
Dzhenghis Khan campaign creating worlds largest Empire
Arab Conquest expansion, 7th Century.
Ottoman Conquest of Constantinople, 1453
The best Indian campaign of AllhailIndias choice - The Chola Campaign

North America, South America, Africa and Australia Post 1492 5

Scotts Expedition to Mexico
Jacksons Campaign in the Valley, civil war
Cortez Conquest of Mexico City
Jan Smuts Guerrilla Campaign in the Boer war
Lord Kitchners Expedition in Sudan, British Imperial

European Wars Post 1492 Pre 1914 5

Napoleons Great Campaign, early years
Gustav Adolphus Campaign in 30 years war
Frederic II's best campaign, Prussia
Russias campaign in conquering the Khanates in Eastern Russia (Ivan I)
Lord Nelsons naval Campaign in the Napoleonic Wars

Modern Campaigns, WW2, 5

Manstein , WW2
Yamamotos Pacific Campaign WW2
Nimitz Campaign, WW2
Montgomerys African Campaign WW2
Zhukovs Campaign, WW2

to throw in the best planned modern wars

outside the top 25 list.

Top 5 campaigns post 1945, of course, no European wars here

First Gulf War, excellent US planning
Inchon landing, Korea War, MacArthur
Israel Perfomance during 6 Day War
Maos campaign in conquering China post WW2
War on Terror, excellent campaigns both in Afghanistan, Iraq, and Phillippines

Being a staunch pro-American myself, for its politics, not its Pre World War hmilitary history, I would like to reiterate I had problem with a too strong emphasis on the Civil War in such a global comparison, which seems naive and overtly patriotic. With some afterthougth, I guess most of you, with US flag on the wall, will admit that 4/15 is too biassed for such a list in promoting the Civil War.

 

[allhailIndia]

Since I have been given one place to slot in the best Indian campaign, I would probably nominate the Chola campaign to secure their trade routes, simply because it is a feat unparalleled in Indian history and ranks up there with other great naval (or amphibious I should say) campaigns in the world.

As for the modern campaigns, I think the Chinese campaign in the Korean war also ranks up there, after having read XIII's articles on it.