|
I'm gonna go with Alexander the Great, I find his history and exploits to be quite amazing for the period in which he lived, not only is he one of the greatest military leaders of all time, as an all around leader he is possibly the best there ever was.
Which in my mind puts him over the top. I think he also was more individually essential in his empires success then say the Roman Empire who had a great many strong leaders at any one time that held it together and advanced its reach and influence. After Alexander's death, his huge empire immediately fell to pieces, so it would seem that he, as one man was more important than I think almost anyone in history in that without him, there is no empire.
Also I guess that could be construed as a negative since he didn't have the wisdom to groom a predecessor and make sure his empire would stay together. Although he was fairly young when he died so its possible he hadn't even thought about that since he thought he had so much time left. I don't know, its an interesting discussion.
|
On September 06 2011 23:59 haduken wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 23:29 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 22:52 haduken wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities. It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them. Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account. As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness. Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops. Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long. Who could outnumber Tang and especially Ming with their huge populations? It is true that Song resisted over 30 something years. But we are talking about military supremacy and i dont see any supremacy of Chinese army. By definition, country with vast population, rich economy and good government institutions must be dominating the immediate neighbors at least. Chinese may have dominated politically or economically but not through military supremacy or warfare. Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare. Where is your argument? How did they NOT dominate? Everyone except the northern barbarians was subdued, Vietnam was a conquered country for almost a millennium before regaining their independence, same goes for Korea, hell Tang effectively destroyed Korean's power and influence outside of the peninsula and cut off the Manchuria from the Korea ever since. Everyone else was either too far/remote or not worth while to conquer. Xiongnu was conquered, half assimilated into Han, the rest went off to Europe and if history is allowed to guess, they went on to terrorize Europe (I don't think this is proven). Jurchens, Tartars, varies other nomad tribes was beaten and enslaved for centuries before they grew strong. If it wasn't for the dreaded terrains and cold, they would have being killed or being assimilated long ago. Japan was a remote backwater that no body cared and the times they expand to mainland both times were shutdown by Chinese intervention with a much smaller army. Imjin war 150K Japanese and later another 150Kish army and still can not make a break through versus a measly 60K Ming army. You seemed to have this strange idea that Ancient Chinese armies only used numbers to win battles... The fact that the Northmen continued wasn't because China didn't win a war, it was because the vast wasteland beyond that made it extremely easy to hide and made it extremely expensive to venture forth. If you read any of the histories of Chinese military expeditions during the peaks of Chinese power it wasn't that they lost in battle but lost because just couldn't find an enemy! Ming/Tang/Han sent their troops and the northmen fleed and not dared to face them in open battle.
Well first of all guys Chinese constructed the longest wall in the world some 2000 years ago and maintained it for the same period. What was the purpose of this wall? Defend China from nomads. If they were that dominant and skillful in military affairs they just could just crush them. The wall is the biggest reminder of who was more skilled in warfare. Note that fighting in Mongolian steppes is far easier than fighting in Vietnam jungles for conventional infantry based armies. When Chinese (Han, Tang, Min) send their huge expeditions into steppes they could not catch them because they were not fast enough. But nomads are herders and so they move with their herds and Chinese army was not fast enough to catch those herds. Kinda slow. Plus they probably did not know the geography of the steppes (bad logistics). Also maintaining large army is costly especially in enemy territory. Nomads in the steppes knew that time was on their side so just rode around them until they exhaust their rations and provisions. That is pure military tactics and strategy and Chinese armies could not sustain themselves long enough to defeat nomads. You just go to your enemy's base (HQ) and destroy them to finish them off. Chinese were never able to this (in zenith of their power). That is why Chinese could not defeat nomads, they were slow, insufficient and unsustainable. And this lasted for 2000 years. Small number of nomads in the north (in population, in army, poor economy) constantly fought with China ( huge population, economy, standing army, superior weaponry) in even terms (in some periods conquered) for a such long period of time is the military supremacy of the former than the latter. Chinese armies north of the wall were not dominant at all. Central Asia (Samarkand,Bukhara) was rich and prosperous place (worth mentioning and conquering) until 13th century and yet during Tang they had brief hold parts of it. China itself was not always united (under han chinese) and had so many dynasties fighting with each other that they could not exercise much influence over neighbors during that time. In fact 2nd millennium was much more stable than earlier periods in China.
I do not know how they enslaved nomads when they even did not control their lands. i do not about Imjin war that much but i believe Koreans (Admiral Yi) did majority of the work.
|
On September 07 2011 12:50 jtrex wrote:Show nested quote +On September 06 2011 23:59 haduken wrote:On September 06 2011 23:29 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 22:52 haduken wrote:On September 06 2011 16:51 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 15:56 FindMeInKenya wrote:On September 06 2011 15:10 jtrex wrote:On September 06 2011 05:55 chenchen wrote:On September 06 2011 05:06 KwarK wrote:
Constantinople was besieged by a Persian army from the Asian side of the straits and an Avar army from the mainland side. Where exactly was their empire that year, Carthage excluded? The people still spoke Greek but the empire's ability to defend them, to levy taxes, to maintain the structure of empire was gone. Taking a map from many years later and saying "look at the shaded area, clearly they're fine" both doesn't address the fact that in 629 (when the Arabs appeared) they were fucked and that the shaded area had been fought over into the ground. They made a recovery in later years which is completely irrelevant to the point at hand. Byzantine and Persia being the strongest nations of their time? Is this a complete joke . . . or did Tang China just evaporate? Before the year 1600 or so, the strongest nation in the world is China by default except for special circumstances (civil war, unrest and invasion) China never had dominance like Roman or Mongol Empires had. Plus China was conquered many times by their northern neighbors. Not even near by default. Chinese dominance as the strongest nation in the world before Industrial revolution is well documented. Even in the time of turmoil, the ability to rally troops for the Chinese was unheard of in the West. Additionally, their dominance extends not only in military but also in economy, technology, and public welfare. Probably they had the strongest economy and the biggest population, but by no means their army was the strongest. They had the biggest economy and population and yet they could not conquer or subjugate their neighbors. Most of the time the opposite happened, they were conquered by their neighbors. Chinese military dominance - over Chinese peasants. Hmm, you grossly underestimate Chinese armies and their fighting abilities. It's kinda pointless to make a point about which culture had the strongest military as the Ancient cultures develop ways of warfare according to terrain and resources available to them. Chinese infantry and cavalry formations would be absolutely slaughtered facing a heavy armored European opponent of similar size but no such opponent existed in Asia thus a comparison is not logical. The closest we get is probably a Japanese samurai which on the two occasions where they did met each other in battle, Tang and Ming, both time Chinese armies won battles and the war despite being outnumbered on both occasions. I'm not saying that Chinese armies are superior because they are not and it's difficult to quantify an armies's strength or military capability with out taking everything else into account. As for your previous posts about China being conquered. Only two times had Chinese heartland being subdued entirely, and the fall of Ming was more due to their inabilities and Manchu's decisiveness. Even the Song, regarded by most people as a soft dynasty, won majority of battles against the northmen but they faced the problem of foot armies. When they lose and lose they will as no armies can win all the time, they can't retreat as the northmen fielded more horses and cut them down and being an agriculture society they just can't produce enough horses and have enough trained mounted troops. Even during the height of Mongol power, Southern Song dynasty resisted for 50 years before their last Emperor died on the sea. Now list one country/nation/empire that fought Mongols resisted that long. Who could outnumber Tang and especially Ming with their huge populations? It is true that Song resisted over 30 something years. But we are talking about military supremacy and i dont see any supremacy of Chinese army. By definition, country with vast population, rich economy and good government institutions must be dominating the immediate neighbors at least. Chinese may have dominated politically or economically but not through military supremacy or warfare. Imo Chinese people are not good at warfare. Where is your argument? How did they NOT dominate? Everyone except the northern barbarians was subdued, Vietnam was a conquered country for almost a millennium before regaining their independence, same goes for Korea, hell Tang effectively destroyed Korean's power and influence outside of the peninsula and cut off the Manchuria from the Korea ever since. Everyone else was either too far/remote or not worth while to conquer. Xiongnu was conquered, half assimilated into Han, the rest went off to Europe and if history is allowed to guess, they went on to terrorize Europe (I don't think this is proven). Jurchens, Tartars, varies other nomad tribes was beaten and enslaved for centuries before they grew strong. If it wasn't for the dreaded terrains and cold, they would have being killed or being assimilated long ago. Japan was a remote backwater that no body cared and the times they expand to mainland both times were shutdown by Chinese intervention with a much smaller army. Imjin war 150K Japanese and later another 150Kish army and still can not make a break through versus a measly 60K Ming army. You seemed to have this strange idea that Ancient Chinese armies only used numbers to win battles... The fact that the Northmen continued wasn't because China didn't win a war, it was because the vast wasteland beyond that made it extremely easy to hide and made it extremely expensive to venture forth. If you read any of the histories of Chinese military expeditions during the peaks of Chinese power it wasn't that they lost in battle but lost because just couldn't find an enemy! Ming/Tang/Han sent their troops and the northmen fleed and not dared to face them in open battle. Well first of all guys Chinese constructed the longest wall in the world some 2000 years ago and maintained it for the same period. What was the purpose of this wall? Defend China from nomads. If they were that dominant and skillful in military affairs they just could just crush them. The wall is the biggest reminder of who was more skilled in warfare. Note that fighting in Mongolian steppes is far easier than fighting in Vietnam jungles for conventional infantry based armies. When Chinese (Han, Tang, Min) send their huge expeditions into steppes they could not catch them because they were not fast enough. But nomads are herders and so they move with their herds and Chinese army was not fast enough to catch those herds. Kinda slow. Plus they probably did not know the geography of the steppes (bad logistics). Also maintaining large army is costly especially in enemy territory. Nomads in the steppes knew that time was on their side so just rode around them until they exhaust their rations and provisions. That is pure military tactics and strategy and Chinese armies could not sustain themselves long enough to defeat nomads. You just go to your enemy's base (HQ) and destroy them to finish them off. Chinese were never able to this (in zenith of their power). That is why Chinese could not defeat nomads, they were slow, insufficient and unsustainable. And this lasted for 2000 years. Small number of nomads in the north (in population, in army, poor economy) constantly fought with China ( huge population, economy, standing army, superior weaponry) in even terms (in some periods conquered) for a such long period of time is the military supremacy of the former than the latter. Chinese armies north of the wall were not dominant at all. Central Asia (Samarkand,Bukhara) was rich and prosperous place (worth mentioning and conquering) until 13th century and yet during Tang they had brief hold parts of it. China itself was not always united (under han chinese) and had so many dynasties fighting with each other that they could not exercise much influence over neighbors during that time. In fact 2nd millennium was much more stable than earlier periods in China. I do not know how they enslaved nomads when they even did not control their lands. i do not about Imjin war that much but i believe Koreans (Admiral Yi) did majority of the work.
you vastly overestimated the extent of time where the nomads were of any threat to china. the only time the chinese heartland was under threat was during the genghis khan era. pretty sure everyone were shitting their pants during that era and as mentioned by someone, they lasted way longer than anyone else in the world. besides that time all the nomad could do is poke when the main army isn't around. as soon as the main army turned their attention to the north, the nomad would retreat into the wasteland because they could not contend head on. similar to the roman empire, they were constantly poked by various groups around them but most of the time, it wasn't much of a threat.
yes the wall was erected for defensive purposes. however it wasn't really meant to stop a massive army from moving in. it was more to prevent little harasses from the north by slowing them down.
honestly something like this is impossible to resolve because there will always be something to picked on for a entity that lasted for so long. way i look at it, considering china's position in present time, i would say their ancestors did a pretty good job.
going back on topic regarding best general. the op did not state a specific enough criteria for there to be a real answer. are we looking for the best general in battles? or the grand scheme of things? grand scheme is obviously genghis khan in my opinion. specific battles is much harder considering how many battles there has been during history
|
On September 07 2011 07:28 KwarK wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 05:38 Adaptation wrote:On September 07 2011 05:22 mcc wrote:On September 07 2011 04:57 Adaptation wrote:On September 07 2011 02:59 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Erwin Rommel / Georgy Zhukov Khalid ibn al Walid Tiglath-Pileser III I wonder why this thread has become another sinophobic rant... I've noticed (I've been a Stalker since 2006 before finally registering some months ago, and becoming an Immortal...) that there's been quite a rise of sinophobia on these forums within the past year. You have to realize that the vast majority of technological innovation from virtually the dawn of civilization to the Scientific Revolution in Europe originated in China.
Meh..... more so like Mesopotamia, Egypt, Greece, Italy. By the Middle Ages, it was largely from the Abbasid caliphate, of which what little knowledge survived from Baghdad was the primary catalyst for the scientific revolution in Italia and other countries after the Mongols came and exterminated the Abbasid population almost entirely O_O 4 great general here, but Khalid is by far ahead of the other. Rommel had a terrible 1943 year and zhukov didn't fare to well in 1941. I got Khalid at 7. As for Tiglath Pileser III, he's somewhere around 40-50 he is definitely a great general but sources are somewhat scarce/very biased. Still a very solid general. And one cruel SOB(but who isn't really!) What about Tiglatpilesar II ?  I am joking since basically nothing is known about him. Anyway, what is your opinion on Lukullus and Aurelianus. Lukullus' eastern campaign was very well executed and battle at Tigranocerta was exemplary feat. He was not too much loved by soldiers though. As for Aurelianus his restoration of the empire might have saved Rome from much quicker death, and all the campaigns were again quite brilliant. EDIT:typo Aurelian is somewhere around 70 on my list because of what you said. Had he not died so young, he could be much much higher. Saved Rome's ass and opened the way to Diocletian Lucullus was good, but couldn't finish the job. Also made the mistake of trusting his damn brother too much. He's not on my 100 list but with reconsidering i think he is better then some of the lower half guys there(Lucullus is certainly better then André messena!) Basil II? The first "Roman" in four centuries to push the barbarians back to the Danube frontier. Fought wars on two fronts, suppressed the palace intrigue, revitalised the yeoman class and rescued the state finances all while implementing a brutal war of attrition.
Will check it out, basil is fine but he fought battles of smaller scale and lost 2-3 times - of course he got major victory's and really gave a boost to the Byzantine empire - he might make it in the low 80's. Will check him out more.
|
![[image loading]](http://a4cgr.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/robert-e-lee.jpg)
Discuss
|
Sun Tzu. 'Nuff said. Although I guess Alexander the Great or Robert E. Lee could give him a run for his money.
|
On September 07 2011 13:29 epikAnglory wrote:
Discuss
Sorry, you need to give something to discuss. Unless your contention is that he's a great general due to his distinguished beard and snappy duds.
|
On September 07 2011 13:31 GhandiEAGLE wrote:
Sun Tzu. 'Nuff said. Although I guess Alexander the Great or Robert E. Lee could give him a run for his money.
Sun Tzu was not a single man it was a collection of generals.
Im going to go with Alexander the Great even though his empire crumbled immediately after his demise. i think he wasn't concerned about that. it was like he was just playing a game and beat it was like well i dont care what happens to this world after im done beating the game and just turned it off.
|
On September 07 2011 13:35 BlackOmega wrote:Sorry, you need to give something to discuss. Unless your contention is that he's a great general due to his distinguished beard and snappy duds.
It is because of the beard.
|
On September 07 2011 13:29 epikAnglory wrote:Discuss
That beard is epic. Not a criterion for being a great general, but it looks awesome
|
I'll add one to the list:
Lieutenant-General Sir Julian Byng of Great Britain.
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bc/Julian_Byng%2C_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy_by_Philip_Alexius_de_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3.jpg/465px-Julian_Byng%2C_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy_by_Philip_Alexius_de_L%C3%A1szl%C3%B3.jpg)
His Wikipedia page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Byng,_1st_Viscount_Byng_of_Vimy
Why? he was the Lieutenant General that commanded the Canadian Corps for the Battle of Vimy Ridge during World War 1. No other nation could take the ridge, but the Canadian Corp, in Kilts and cold, got the job done.
|
On February 15 2011 13:53 Shrinky Dink wrote:![[image loading]](http://imgur.com/giCRx.jpg) Seriously though, if you look past the horrors he did, he was actually an excellent speaker, with his war machine being responsible for some of the greatest advances in technology and science, and recovered his country's extreme deficit in its economy at the time (following the Treaty of Versailles). I know it's obviously that he wasn't the greatest of all time, but IMO he is very underrated as a leader for his country since everyone looks at his cons.
I've always felt this way about Hitler. I don't condone ANY of the horrible crimes he committed but he was still an amazing leader and did a LOT with only a small amount of resources.
|
Depends on what you mean by a "great" general. If you mean a romantic, dashing figure who struggles against overwhelming odds, then probably Hannibal, Napoleon, Lee, Yamamoto, or Rommel. If, however, you mean the most effective general, then none of those guys really qualify.
Victory in war is the only actual metric for an effective military commander. Great generals win wars - they don't lose and then complain that the odds were too great.
Adolf Hitler was a skilled politician, but a complete failure as a military strategist. Remember, the Nazis lost WWII.
Robert Lee is one of the most overrated generals of all time. Guy was a pretty good operational commander (i.e., he could win battles, though primarily when faced with relatively inept opponents), but in the end he was a failure as a strategist (remember his war-winning invasions of the North in 1862 and 1863? Yeah, not so much...). That, and he was a slave-owning traitor to his country. I will grant that he had a fabulous beard.
Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar, Belisarius, Khalid ibn al-Walid, John Churchill, the Iron Duke, Ulysses Grant, Chester Nimitz, Dwight Eisenhower - those guys were great generals, because they were winners. One might add individuals like William Pitt, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, or Mao Zedong to that list, even though they were not strictly-speaking military commanders.
For kookiest general of all time, check this guy out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Orde_Wingate
|
On September 07 2011 12:50 jtrex wrote:
You just go to your enemy's base (HQ) and destroy them to finish them off. Chinese were never able to this (in zenith of their power).
I don't think you get it. Nomads had no "HQ" or "base." They had the entire Eurasian steppes, and the road was their home. To dominate the steppes, you needed to be a nomad or to command nomads, because it was logistically impossible to sustain a pre-modern sedentary army in the deep steppes for an extended period of time. Any pre-modern sedentary civilization that tried to annihilate the nomads in their own steppes would've bankrupted itself, not just China, which is why the nomads were such a persistent threat to sedentary countries for the last 2000-3000 years all across the world - no one could destroy them.
It's one thing to say that the steppe nomads were the most powerful military force in the history of the world because of the way they fought and the life-style they led (one could make this argument, since horses were like the super weapons of the pre-modern world), but if you're going to distinguish the Romans, then you should realize that the Romans were no more able to conquer the steppes than the Chinese could. Both built walls and fought defensively against the nomads, as was necessary for sedentary civilizations to do. Neither campaigned successfully in the steppes itself (the Romans didn't even really try).
|
|
|
The Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley, 1st Duke of Wellington)
![[image loading]](http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/44/Phillips-Arthur_Wellesley%2C_1st_Duke_of_Wellington.jpg)
Wikipedia- Arthur Wellesley 1st Duke of Wellignton
Born in Ireland, he was commissioned an ensign in the British Army in 1787. Serving in Ireland as aide-de-camp to two successive Lords Lieutenant of Ireland he was also elected as a Member of Parliament in the Irish House of Commons. A colonel by 1796, Wellesley saw action in the Netherlands and later in India, where he fought in the Fourth Anglo-Mysore War at the Battle of Seringapatam. He was appointed governor of Seringapatam and Mysore in 1799.
Wellesley rose to prominence as a general during the Peninsular campaign of the Napoleonic Wars, and was promoted to the rank of field marshal after leading the allied forces to victory against the French at the Battle of Vitoria in 1813. Following Napoleon's exile in 1814, he served as the ambassador to France and was granted a dukedom. During the Hundred Days in 1815, he commanded the allied army which, with a Prussian army under Blücher, defeated Napoleon at the Battle of Waterloo. Wellesley's battle record is exemplary, ultimately participating in some 60 battles throughout his military career.[4]
He was twice prime minister under the Tory party and oversaw the passage of the Catholic Relief Act 1829. He was prime minister from 1828–30 and served briefly in 1834. He was unable to prevent the passage of the Reform Act of 1832 and continued as one of the leading figures in the House of Lords until his retirement. He remained Commander-in-Chief of the British Army until his death.
|
Bah, that's quite easy. He conquered the whole known world in his time at 23 years old.
Just think about it people. I know that's not a proper argument but who cares, that fact is unbefuckinglievable.
|
On September 08 2011 02:43 Azarkon wrote:Show nested quote +On September 07 2011 12:50 jtrex wrote:
You just go to your enemy's base (HQ) and destroy them to finish them off. Chinese were never able to this (in zenith of their power).
I don't think you get it. Nomads had no "HQ" or "base." They had the entire Eurasian steppes, and the road was their home. To dominate the steppes, you needed to be a nomad or to command nomads, because it was logistically impossible to sustain a pre-modern sedentary army in the deep steppes for an extended period of time. Any pre-modern sedentary civilization that tried to annihilate the nomads in their own steppes would've bankrupted itself, not just China, which is why the nomads were such a persistent threat to sedentary countries for the last 2000-3000 years all across the world - no one could destroy them. It's one thing to say that the steppe nomads were the most powerful military force in the history of the world because of the way they fought and the life-style they led (one could make this argument, since horses were like the super weapons of the pre-modern world), but if you're going to distinguish the Romans, then you should realize that the Romans were no more able to conquer the steppes than the Chinese could. Both built walls and fought defensively against the nomads, as was necessary for sedentary civilizations to do. Neither campaigned successfully in the steppes itself (the Romans didn't even really try).
I do not disagree with your assessment, but Romans did not try to conquer steppes as they never had any borders with steppe. They had few somewhat isolated cities on the northern side of Black Sea, but those were mostly vassals not even proper Roman territories. They just did not have proper continuous border close enough to the steppe to even allow any military incursion. But otherwise as you say they would have similar results as China probably.
|
just something i read a while ago from somewhere. it goes something like "a good general/leader fights using his own hands, a great general/leader uses others to fight for him" honestly feel that anyone who doesn't fit that criteria cannot possibility be the greatest considering he doesn't even understand his own value and possible demise of his army by getting killed on the battlefield.
|
Romance of the 3 kingdom was a fictional history novel which exaggerated the accomplishments of ZhugeLiang and Guan Yu. Zhuge Liang's and Guan Yu's military careers were both failures as Zhuge Liang failed his Northern Expedition and Guan Yu lost JingZhou to Wu and got himself captured and killed. CaoCao was the best general during his era.
Temujin / Genghis Khan is the greatest as him and his successors conquered both Eastern and Western civilizations, there is really no point of debating that from both Western or Eastern military fans.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
