EPTGreat Military leaders of History? - Page 17
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ranjutan
United States636 Posts
| ||
|
HTX
Germany265 Posts
| ||
|
MerciLess
213 Posts
| ||
|
NexUmbra
Scotland3776 Posts
| ||
|
Fiend13
Germany140 Posts
Measured by pure success (conquest to be more precise) it would be Genghis Khan. On a personal note: Seeking greatness in war is a very careless thing to do as there are no winners there. | ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
On February 16 2011 00:15 mcc wrote: I would love to see the quote for that Rome vs China Army size, because that seems highly improbable. Rome had higher population and was much wealthier state. I think any modern historian would agree that not only was China far more developed agriculturally and industrially (it could like what . . . produce three times as much food on the same amount land and ten times as much iron) . . . . it CLEARLY fielded much larger armies due to these advantages. Your Eurocentric education prevails once again. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On February 16 2011 00:15 mcc wrote: I would love to see the quote for that Rome vs China Army size, because that seems highly improbable. Rome had higher population and was much wealthier state. First off, Rome didn't have a higher population in the BC era, and I highly doubt they were a richer state than the Han dynasty. If you take a census from even 300 AD (which is 300 years after when I was talking): http://www.tulane.edu/~august/H303/handouts/Population.htm The Total Western Empire was about 22 million people. (You can't include Eastern Roman Empire because Rome hadn't conquered the Greeks or Ptolemaic Dynasties yet. Han Population: http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Census The world's oldest extant census data comes from China during the Han Dynasty. Taken in the fall of 2 C.E., it is considered by scholars to be quite accurate. At that time there were 59.6 million living in Han China, the world's largest population. So, Han dynasty was almost triple Western Roman Empire's population and their census was taken 300 years earlier. Also, take into consideration that Rome's legionnaires were drawn from their citizens and allies, not the entire male population, so you can reduce their pool of recruits even more. Second, here is an example of the field armies of Han vs Rome. Han Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xiongnu#War_with_Han_Dynasty "In 119 BC both Huo and Wei, each leading 50,000 cavalrymen and 100,000 footsoldiers (in order to keep up with the mobility of the Xiongnu, many of the non-cavalry Han soldiers were mobile infantrymen who traveled on horseback but fought on foot), and advancing along different routes, forced the chanyu and his court to flee north of the Gobi Desert." So, that shows the Han dynasty could field two armies of 150,000 men to pincer the Xiongnu. This does not include the many other garrisons and conquered territories of the Han as well. This is merely their deployment against the Xiongnu, their enemies to the north. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Han_map.jpg There's a picture of Han dynasty's territory and how large the Xiongnu were by comparison. There are other numerous examples of armies being fielded even larger than this in PRE-Han dynasty era as well. (205 BC) Battle of Jingxing: Zhao Xie (King of Zhao) and his chancellor Chen Yu led a 200,000 strong army to resist the Han forces. (204 BC) Battle of Wei River: Xiang Yu sent Long Ju to lead a 200,000 strong army to help Tian Guang. Roman Army: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_army#Roman_army_of_the_mid-Republic_.28ca._300_-_107_BC.29 During the earlier phase, the normal size of the levy (including allies) was in the region of 40,000 men (2 consular armies of ca. 20,000 men each). Basically, a normal field army for Romans was 20,000 men.... At the height of 2nd Punic war, Roman deployment reached a peak of ca. 240,000. AKA, the entire Roman armed forces numbered 240,000 men during a war that they were fighting for their survival. By comparison, Han dynasty could send 300,000 men as an invading force for the purposes of attacking nomads and taking over horse pastures. | ||
|
StorkHwaiting
United States3465 Posts
On February 16 2011 00:52 WhiteDog wrote: Read china's history, read again. Then post. Or read some chapter of Guns, Germs and Steel from Jared Diamond. There is a chapter entirely dedicated on China where he try to understand why china never had been the superpower it should have. (Basically, not enough competition). Yes because Jared Diamond is the supreme authority on history lol... Of course China never had any competition... Not like the Mongols, Tanguts, Manchus, Jurchens, Khitans, Khitais, Xiongnu, Huns, Tibetans, Xianbei, Abbasids, ad infinitum weren't some of the most feared warriors in the world and went on to conquer almost the entire rest of the known world whenever they took a break from attacking China. It's pretty hilarious when you look at some of China's perennial foes and then look at how well they did when they turned their hordes westwards rather than to the south. | ||
|
chenchen
United States1136 Posts
On February 16 2011 01:02 LegendaryZ wrote: Nope Nope Nope China has undergone a tremendous amount of change through the centuries. I don't think you could really say that the country we see in the modern day is anything close to what it was a few centuries ago. Even modern day China doesn't share the same culture and language across all of its regions and provinces. Politically speaking, it may be a single country, but the reality is that it's a very fractured one with deep regional divisions, very much reflective of its past. More like Yes Yes Yes Despite China's regional divisions, dozens of unique ethnic groups, and hundreds of languages, it is unified by the idea of China, which by itself is a supranational identity. Historically the idea of China was synonymous with the idea of the "civilized world", outside which lied tributary states and barbarians. Since 200 BC, all of China had a unified written language. For much of that time (200BC - 200 AD, 500 AD - 1911 AD), China was a unified political entity. Most of the people of China celebrate traditions that are thousands of years old. Saying that the China of today is culturally different from the China of a few centuries ago is absurd. Any Chinese or Taiwanese high schooler can read a manuscript well over 2500 years old to you. | ||
|
andrewlt
United States7702 Posts
On February 16 2011 01:21 StorkHwaiting wrote: Yes because Jared Diamond is the supreme authority on history lol... Of course China never had any competition... Not like the Mongols, Tanguts, Manchus, Jurchens, Khitans, Khitais, Xiongnu, Huns, Tibetans, Xianbei, Abbasids, ad infinitum weren't some of the most feared warriors in the world and went on to conquer almost the entire rest of the known world whenever they took a break from attacking China. It's pretty hilarious when you look at some of China's perennial foes and then look at how well they did when they turned their hordes westwards rather than to the south. Yup. Biggest reason for Western Europe's ascension in the last 500 years (really just a blip in human history) was because Ogedei had a heart attack before the Mongols advanced further in Europe. Europe at the time was way behind China and the Middle East but the Mongol attacks set those regions way back. | ||
|
yema1
Iceland101 Posts
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c2/Gustavus_Adolphus_at_the_Battle_at_Breitenfeld.jpg) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gustavus_Adolphus_of_Sweden "Gustavus Adolphus was known as an able military commander. His innovative tactical integration of infantry, cavalry, artillery and logistics earned him the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare". Future commanders who studied and admired Gustav II Adolf include Napoleon I of France and Carl von Clausewitz. His advancements in military science made Sweden the dominant Baltic power for the next one hundred years (see Swedish Empire). He is also the only Swedish monarch to be styled "the Great". This decision was made by the Swedish Estates of the Realm, when they convened in 1633. Thus, by their decision he is officially, to this day, to be called Gustaf Adolf the Great (Gustavus Adolphus Magnus)." He deserves some credit at least. | ||
|
Sleeep
Turkey37 Posts
![[image loading]](http://www.surf2istanbul.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/04/ataturk2222.jpg) | ||
|
Caphe
Vietnam10817 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:34 Jubinell wrote: How about this guy? ![[image loading]](http://danluan.org/files/u2/sub01/VoNguyenGiap-305afp_0.jpg) Beats the French. Name was used during the beating of the American. Beats life (over a hundred years old now). General Giap would easily be the greatest general that is still ALIVE. Some historicans rank him among the best 10 general of all time. Though I don't have my own list, 'cos comparing general from difference times is next to impossible. If only counted the last 300-400 years, General Giap will easily be in the top 5. | ||
|
MoltkeWarding
5195 Posts
First off, Rome didn't have a higher population in the BC era, and I highly doubt they were a richer state than the Han dynasty. Not that I dispute your point, but the examples you use are skewed. In 300 AD the schism of the Empire was caused by the nominal reign of two Caesars and two Augusti in the respective halves of the Empire. The Greeks and Ptolemaics had been conquered over three centuries ago by that point. The Empire as a whole was regarded as a single empire under two administrations. Take the Empire as a whole, most estimates I've seen put the figure at around 40 million, although how one comes by these figures is beyond me. In the 2nd Punic War, Rome was still a Republic whose only Imperial possessions were Sicily and Sardinia. Naturally the population of Italy was much smaller than Han China's. What is astonishing was the manpower Rome managed to levy out of that base during the Punic and Pyrrhic wars, despite repeated catastrophes. As for China being a continuous civilization, all non-Sinomaniacs have to understand that you are debating a particular Chinese concept. The notion of Chinese civilizational exceptionalism is the very core of Chinese identity. It transcends the rise and fall of empires, dynasties, religions or even cultures. Chinese civilization is synonymous with the very concept of China. It's founded on traditional Chinese attitudes of ethnocentrism, the idea that China is not a, but the model of civilization, and that all things which fall outside of this civilization is barbaric. Hence Mongols and Manchus can overthrow Chinese dynasties and governments, but they cannot overthrow Chinese civilization, because of its innate superiority to all other forms. Chinese civilization is hence made invincible by its very concept and definition, and the encroachments of European ideas 200 years ago have made more dents in that smug self-sufficiency than any nomadic invader of the past millenia. | ||
|
Adaptation
Canada427 Posts
On February 15 2011 15:46 Fraidnot wrote: A really good list of generals, but you don't include any modern generals. I find it kind of hard to believe that not a single general since Napoleon has not been better then at least Maurice, comte de Saxe. I'd make the argument that Alexander should top the list, certainly wasn't able to accomplish as much as Khan, but he also had a much shorter period of time to work with and unlike Khan was never defeated in battle. The main reason why Genghis is over alexander is mainly because Alexander's father arranged everything for him before his death. The macedonian army was very good when alexander came to the throne, and from there he just steam rolled Persia. Genghis Khan on the other hand, started from nothing. His father was a leader of a small tribe in mongolia. He had to unite mongolia, organise all the army and from there conquer all the territory's he's known for. Thats usually the main point that makes genghis over alexander - he started from scratch. As for modernity, i will admit that it his tough to compare because post-napoleonic general had huge political constraints, as well as logistics nightmare. It becomes hard to determine who is responsible for what, but from my top 100 list that continues, i did have #27 Erich von Manstein #33 Moltke #36 Guderian #37 Lee | ||
Jibba
United States22883 Posts
On February 15 2011 23:07 Sm3agol wrote: Well....as i said, no, I'm not calling him terrible. But for crying aloud he was fighting a barbarian army that still used a primitive phalanx half the time, vs his highly trained and modern legions. And jumping into the thick of battle doesn't qualify you as a great tactician/general. Ceasar an all-time great leader? Sure. All-time great General? Maybe, but, imo not top 5 or even 10. His army gave him too much of an advantage for me to say that. Fair? Maybe not, but imo, a general who proves he can win vs better equipped and numerically superior forces is better than one who merely uses his armies great advantages to its best potential. And there are too many proven generals who won with less for me to put Ceasar up there as an all time top 5/10 general. What? This isn't true at all. By Caesar's account they were barbarians, but by historical accounts the Gauls were fairly advanced and the Romans took and used several of their military advancements, especially their armor. And your assessment of Grant shows a complete lack of understanding. You might have studied battles, but you never studied war. I wouldn't put him in a top 10 list, but he was the best general in the Civil War. I can't believe this thread has been degraded into a stupid numbers argument. Moltke, would you tell people to read some Clausewitz? | ||
|
Humil
Netherlands19 Posts
| ||
|
Piy
Scotland3152 Posts
| ||
|
BobbyBrown
New Zealand62 Posts
| ||
|
xDaunt
United States17988 Posts
On February 16 2011 01:37 MoltkeWarding wrote: As for China being a continuous civilization, all non-Sinomaniacs have to understand that you are debating a particular Chinese concept. The notion of Chinese civilizational exceptionalism is the very core of Chinese identity. It transcends the rise and fall of empires, dynasties, religions or even cultures. Chinese civilization is synonymous with the very concept of China. It's founded on traditional Chinese attitudes of ethnocentrism, the idea that China is not a, but the model of civilization, and that all things which fall outside of this civilization is barbaric. Hence Mongols and Manchus can overthrow Chinese dynasties and governments, but they cannot overthrow Chinese civilization, because of its innate superiority to all other forms. Chinese civilization is hence made invincible by its very concept and definition, and the encroachments of European ideas 200 years ago have made more dents in that smug self-sufficiency than any nomadic invader of the past millenia. This was made explicitly clear to me when I visited the War Museum in Beijing. The sheer sense of shame that the Chinese feel from what happened when it was more or a less a European colony is very strong. | ||
| ||
)
