EPTGreat Military leaders of History? - Page 43
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Deleted User 137586
7859 Posts
| ||
|
Bill Murray
United States9292 Posts
the best, though? definitely not field marshal ney | ||
|
Azarkon
United States21060 Posts
On September 05 2011 20:41 keV. wrote: Khan deserves to be mentioned for sure. However, I think it's important to know that most of his victories come from Chinese territories, where tribes and armies simply did not have the horses to deal with mounted archers. Khan had the steppe, horses and the shortbow on his side. China and Persia had certainly developed amazingly sophisticated technology for the time, but said technology wasn't necessarily useful on the battlefield or warfare related. I personally believe that the greatest thing the mongols contributed to warfare was their military ranking system, which has carried on till today and I think it was one of his sons that set that up, be it based on ideas from Genghis himself. Genghis Khan's most impressive victories were over other steppes peoples. Steppe nomads have always had a military advantage over sedentary peoples due to their life-style, and once Genghis built one of the greatest steppe confederations in history, his victory over his sedentary neighbors was almost assured. Many historians tend to play up Genghis Khan's military achievements over China and Persia, forgetting that China and Persia's weaknesses vis-a-vis nomads were established long before Genghis Khan and persisted long after him. For example: * Northern China had been conquered by the Jurchens, another militarily steppes people, a hundred years earlier than the rise of Genghis Khan. When Genghis Khan attacked China, there wasn't actually a Chinese empire - northern China was still being occupied by the Jurchens, and southern China was less of an empire than a state-in-exile, as the defeated Chinese government had been forced to flee there. * Four hundred years after Genghis, China lost to a handful of semi-nomads once again, when the Manchus with their 100k-150k tribesmen conquered Ming China with its 100-150+ million people. Genghis Khan was certainly not the first or the last to demonstrate how a small group of nomads can easily overcome large sedentary states, and I don't think it necessarily says a lot about him that he was able to do it. | ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
Looking back, Id say Mvp is the greatest.  | ||
|
Krehlmar
Sweden1149 Posts
Or just godamn SUN TZU That guy is badass | ||
|
iAmBiGbiRd
Australia1029 Posts
I'm tired so wont add anything else atm but will give proper reasons plus more contenders later | ||
|
Cokefreak
Finland8095 Posts
| ||
|
metbull
United States404 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:20 Whiladan wrote: Not top-5 material, but without a doubt the greatest general of his time as of yet. ![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/KEUcj.jpg) This is joke right? | ||
|
bRuTaL!!
Finland588 Posts
| ||
KwarK
United States42283 Posts
On September 05 2011 21:49 Zyban wrote: General Robert E. Lee without question. although you could also make a case for Winston Churchill if your including leaders and not nessasarry "commissioned" generals. Churchill was the incompetent who masterminded the Gallipoli campaign. | ||
|
RoyAlex
Norway420 Posts
On February 15 2011 14:20 Whiladan wrote: Not top-5 material, but without a doubt the greatest general of his time as of yet. Awww... TLO all grown up, so cuuuute! :3 | ||
|
mcc
Czech Republic4646 Posts
On September 05 2011 22:21 Krehlmar wrote: If I am not mistaken, Ghengis Khan killed the most % of the world population of any person ever, and has yet to be surpased in the size of his empire: He created the biggest empire ever, coming from godamn Steppes without any real huge trade/capitals, fighting only the best and brightest of the time. Or just godamn SUN TZU That guy is badass British one was bigger in size, Russian one basically the same as Mongol one. As far as population goes absolutely and relatively many empires were bigger. And do we actually know anything about Sun-tzu actually being a general or do we just have the book ? | ||
|
skrotcyk
Sweden432 Posts
On September 05 2011 22:54 mcc wrote: British one was bigger in size, Russian one basically the same as Mongol one. As far as population goes absolutely and relatively many empires were bigger. And do we actually know anything about Sun-tzu actually being a general or do we just have the book ? I'd say both the Russian and mongol empire was bigger than the British one in size, Today Russia is more then 1/8 of the earth's surface. | ||
|
Bourneq
Sweden800 Posts
| ||
|
thoradycus
Malaysia3262 Posts
On September 05 2011 22:51 RoyAlex wrote: Awww... TLO all grown up, so cuuuute! :3 LOL i almost thought TLO's face was photoshopped into the picture ROFL | ||
|
RafikiSC
United States90 Posts
On September 05 2011 23:04 skrotcyk wrote: I'd say both the Russian and mongol empire was bigger than the British one in size, Today Russia is more then 1/8 of the earth's surface. In the early 1900's the British empire covered almost 1/4 of the available land on earth. Not only did they control land on every continent but they possessed an entire continent (i.e. Australia) and sub-continents (i.e. India). The Russian and Mongol empires were certainly large, but they did not match the extent of the British. | ||
|
jtrex
Japan94 Posts
On September 05 2011 23:19 RafikiSC wrote: In the early 1900's the British empire covered almost 1/4 of the available land on earth. Not only did they control land on every continent but they possessed an entire continent (i.e. Australia) and sub-continents (i.e. India). The Russian and Mongol empires were certainly large, but they did not match the extent of the British. British Empire had the biggest territory overall, about 33 million square kms. Mongol Empire had about 31 mil sq kms but it was the largest CONTINUOUS empire. When Chinggis Khaan (not Genghis Khan) conquered china he had about 100-120k army. China had 90mil population. | ||
|
Cush
United States646 Posts
| ||
|
KwarK
United States42283 Posts
On September 05 2011 23:19 RafikiSC wrote: In the early 1900's the British empire covered almost 1/4 of the available land on earth. Not only did they control land on every continent but they possessed an entire continent (i.e. Australia) and sub-continents (i.e. India). The Russian and Mongol empires were certainly large, but they did not match the extent of the British. It also must be remembered that the British Empire was an economic rather than territorial institution which, in real terms, stretched far beyond the borders shaded in on the map. Formal colonial rule was only established when the local elites failed to protect western investments and businesses. As long as western investments in trade, mineral exploitation and labour were protected the previous elites remained in charge and paid well for their part in wealth creation. Most of South America formed part of the European empires but it was not until the 50s and 60s that business there came under threat and by then it was an American problem. The classic example is Egypt, long ruled by debt until the nationalisation of the Suez Canal at which point the investors demanded British and French intervention to protect their assets (the first time, not the Suez Crisis in the 1960s). Drawing a line at intervention makes no sense when intervention is done to preserve the status quo. These were empires of degree, investors, bankers, politicians and generals all with independent interests in a country, all exerting influence and using the deliberate, imperialistic use of force only when threatened. | ||
|
Puph
Canada635 Posts
| ||
| ||
