Dreadnought
Deity
I agree with Adler. Prussia managed to defeat three nemies that outnumbered him, and he kept key French forces out of America.
Well put Adler!
Well put Adler!
What Makes a Good Conqueror?
- Thread starter DAv2003
- Start date
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
I agree with Adler about the way of "incorporating" conquered peoples.
It is quite impossible for a conqueror to last with the basic forces he had if he cannot make conquered people join him.
Many tribes willingly joined Gengis Khan and apart from some heavy destruction to show the futility of resistance (ex Beijing or Baghdad), Mongols were usually quite tolerant and incorporated quickly conquered people.
One has to remember than before natioanlism kicked in, being conquered meant often merely the replacement of one master by another, after a brief period of turmoil.
Gengis Khan and Napoleon did not meet the same situations at all.
But Napoleon did quite alright at the beginning as he gave many conquered people the aspirations they demanded. More freedom and a more simple and fair justice and administration. About measures, law, adminstration, research & education, Napoleon was probably a gift to Europe (and to Germany which unification process he eased considerably).
He succeeded in making the first conquered people fight for him quite willingly at the beginning. The problem is that as war lasted more and more the burden became much more important than the benefits and that Napoleon showed more and more disrespect to the conquered people by drawing frontiers and giving fiefs as he wished, thus going back to the procedures he had started to fight. He then underestimated the national feelings and social demands that were at the very origin of the French Army that led him to power.
Hannibal never succeeded in getting his "allies" (Celts and southern Italians) to fight for him on the long term which explains the utlimate demise of his Italian campaign.
So a good conqueror IMHO is someone who succeeds in being seen as a better solution, if not as a liberator, by the conquered people. These people then don't need to keep his armies busy (military police) but on the contrary they reinforce them in a snowball effect.
In that sense Hitler is the worst type of conqueror and Mongols or the first wave of Muslim/Arab conquest are extremely good conquerors.
Frederick II was a brilliant tactician and survived with a then small country but he cannot be compared to Mongols or especially Arabs. He weakened his country by continuous battles for a very tiny territory that he did not really control at the end of the war anyway. And a good conqueror does not really have to fight many battles.
It is quite impossible for a conqueror to last with the basic forces he had if he cannot make conquered people join him.
Many tribes willingly joined Gengis Khan and apart from some heavy destruction to show the futility of resistance (ex Beijing or Baghdad), Mongols were usually quite tolerant and incorporated quickly conquered people.
One has to remember than before natioanlism kicked in, being conquered meant often merely the replacement of one master by another, after a brief period of turmoil.
Gengis Khan and Napoleon did not meet the same situations at all.
But Napoleon did quite alright at the beginning as he gave many conquered people the aspirations they demanded. More freedom and a more simple and fair justice and administration. About measures, law, adminstration, research & education, Napoleon was probably a gift to Europe (and to Germany which unification process he eased considerably).
He succeeded in making the first conquered people fight for him quite willingly at the beginning. The problem is that as war lasted more and more the burden became much more important than the benefits and that Napoleon showed more and more disrespect to the conquered people by drawing frontiers and giving fiefs as he wished, thus going back to the procedures he had started to fight. He then underestimated the national feelings and social demands that were at the very origin of the French Army that led him to power.
Hannibal never succeeded in getting his "allies" (Celts and southern Italians) to fight for him on the long term which explains the utlimate demise of his Italian campaign.
So a good conqueror IMHO is someone who succeeds in being seen as a better solution, if not as a liberator, by the conquered people. These people then don't need to keep his armies busy (military police) but on the contrary they reinforce them in a snowball effect.
In that sense Hitler is the worst type of conqueror and Mongols or the first wave of Muslim/Arab conquest are extremely good conquerors.
Frederick II was a brilliant tactician and survived with a then small country but he cannot be compared to Mongols or especially Arabs. He weakened his country by continuous battles for a very tiny territory that he did not really control at the end of the war anyway. And a good conqueror does not really have to fight many battles.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Napoleon was indeed giving the people a more modern and liberal government, at first. The introduction of the Code civil was very important. In some parts of Germany it was in force until 1900. But nationalism was already born. He created new artificial kingdoms like Westphalia on the soil of other nations. Also his wars and partly his tyranny lead to an upcoming resistance against him. But these countries were too weak and only waited for a sign, which came in Tauroggen (Lit.: Taurage) in western Lithunia, where the Prussian marshal Yorck von Wartenburg made a cease fire with the Czar. This was the beginning of the end as Prussia liberated themselves from the French, following Austria and the others. IIRC only Saxony and Denmark remained his allies until they were beaten.
About Frederick: His country was called "des Reiches Streusandbüchse" (grit can) when he became king because his territory was widely extended and with no connection. From Jülich, Kleve, Berg in Westphalia, East Friesland on the North sea coast, over Magdeburg, Brandenburg, Eastern Pommerania to (East) Prussia. He had several claims on certain territories in the west, which were once promised by the Kaiser but never kept. Also he had some claims on Silesia, which were in no way really that good. However he used them, although he did not believe in them himself, as excusion for his attack in Silesia, a rich province. The small Prussia attacks the huge Austrian empire for a jewel in his crown. He wanted glory as he later admitted by also regretting the decision to attack. However he was at first banned because: Quod licet Iove non licet bove. And although having only a small nation with not many resources he had the best army of the world in these days. And some of the best officers ever seen. Lordmarishall Keith, Seydlitz, Moritz von Anhalt- Dessau, Schwerin, only to name a few. So in three wars he could conquer and hold the province. He was beaten indeed but luck brought him back to win the war. He knew his abilities but also the end of it. And that is something most other conquerers did not know. Gengis Khan perhaps excluded as he had indeed the possibilities to conquer the whole world. But it is doubtful if he could have hold it indeed for long. Alexander, Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler. They all didn´t know it and they paid all the price for it, except Alexander, who died of a fever in Babylon.
@ Loulong: Did you ever read Frederick´s Antimacchiavell?
Adler
About Frederick: His country was called "des Reiches Streusandbüchse" (grit can) when he became king because his territory was widely extended and with no connection. From Jülich, Kleve, Berg in Westphalia, East Friesland on the North sea coast, over Magdeburg, Brandenburg, Eastern Pommerania to (East) Prussia. He had several claims on certain territories in the west, which were once promised by the Kaiser but never kept. Also he had some claims on Silesia, which were in no way really that good. However he used them, although he did not believe in them himself, as excusion for his attack in Silesia, a rich province. The small Prussia attacks the huge Austrian empire for a jewel in his crown. He wanted glory as he later admitted by also regretting the decision to attack. However he was at first banned because: Quod licet Iove non licet bove. And although having only a small nation with not many resources he had the best army of the world in these days. And some of the best officers ever seen. Lordmarishall Keith, Seydlitz, Moritz von Anhalt- Dessau, Schwerin, only to name a few. So in three wars he could conquer and hold the province. He was beaten indeed but luck brought him back to win the war. He knew his abilities but also the end of it. And that is something most other conquerers did not know. Gengis Khan perhaps excluded as he had indeed the possibilities to conquer the whole world. But it is doubtful if he could have hold it indeed for long. Alexander, Napoleon, Caesar, Hitler. They all didn´t know it and they paid all the price for it, except Alexander, who died of a fever in Babylon.
@ Loulong: Did you ever read Frederick´s Antimacchiavell?
Adler
LouLong
In love with Rei Ayanami
No I haven't ... but guess I should.
Except if I misunderstood something or explained myself in my previous post our positions on Napoleon are very similar, so I am convinced already. H was not a great conqueror eventually.
About FII I must say I am not convinced. He understood where to stop (else Prussia disappeared) and got respect and recognized as a leading country. In a way he paved the way for the future of his country but for me he was no really a conqueror. I don't doubt a second his military skills though.
Except if I misunderstood something or explained myself in my previous post our positions on Napoleon are very similar, so I am convinced already. H was not a great conqueror eventually.
About FII I must say I am not convinced. He understood where to stop (else Prussia disappeared) and got respect and recognized as a leading country. In a way he paved the way for the future of his country but for me he was no really a conqueror. I don't doubt a second his military skills though.
Adler17
Prussian Feldmarschall
Well FII conquered Silesia and was able to retake Western Prussia and the Ermland from Poland later on a more or less peaceful way. He was aware he couldn´t conquer the whole world. But the ammount of territory captured is only in so far important as it has to be seen relative. I mean if Luxemburg conquered the Saarland it would be a great deed (for a Luxemburgian). But here are the similarities. Prussia was in 1740 overextended in territory. And the enemy, Austria, was weak because of the succession of Maria Theresia (Irony of history: Maria Theresia was also a candidate to merry Frederick!). So Frederick grabbed the raw diamond Silesia. That was for such a small country a great deed. So he can be put in the line of the greatest conquerors.
Adler
Adler
You forgot to mention: Francisco Pizarro
Occupation: Conquistador
Ability to conquer: What can I say. Lead expeditions into the greatest pre-colombian empire, captured emperor, cheated him, ruthlessly root out all oppositions and loot everything he can. What a nice guy.
Ability to govern: Mediocre. Estabilished firm Spanish control.
Ability to consilidate: no problems with the Incas (all dead or enslaved, see what I mean?). Root out his Spanish ally-turned-enemy and stabbed by his son.
Occupation: Conquistador
Ability to conquer: What can I say. Lead expeditions into the greatest pre-colombian empire, captured emperor, cheated him, ruthlessly root out all oppositions and loot everything he can. What a nice guy.
Ability to govern: Mediocre. Estabilished firm Spanish control.
Ability to consilidate: no problems with the Incas (all dead or enslaved, see what I mean?). Root out his Spanish ally-turned-enemy and stabbed by his son.
Similar threads
