Top 100 Generals

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello Bernard   The numerical diadvantage in the campaign was not that much and occured only in two battles from the 10 or so main battles during the campaigns. After the first battle the resistance simply faded and local commanders deserted the Khwairmians (he had on paper 400k soldiers but only could muster about half that number).   As for your story about the town well I don't if it is true or not but it does illustrate the high level of urbanization in central asia and the total dependence on professional troops.   I must admitt though that I know little about the the Khan's Chinese campaigns which saw much more resistance than in central asia because China was much more centralized and organised than the much hated Khwarizmids.   Al-Jassas

the shortcoming of the Kwarazmian Army are not Chinggiz fault, that is beyond his reach and influence. so if the Mongols outnumbered the Kwarazmians individually, then as Bernard said, that's a display of Mongol leadership superority and an argument pro-Chinggiz. and why you question Bernards story which he quoted from Juvaini, one of the primary sources? if you haven't read Juvaini how come you even argue and with what basis other than well-founded national bias?

Originally posted by Temujin you have to accept that there is a. something called 'chain of command', b. commanders below C-in-C, and c. individual commanders can't be everywhere at the same time, that's why there is something like a chain of command in the first place...

Totaly agree. Which is why Marlborough should be higher than he is.

Hello to you all

Originally posted by Al Jassas Hello to you all   Continuing my post earlier.   If the C-in-C deserves so much then Private 1st class Adolph Hitler will be in the top ten or 50 at least. The guy showed skill in choosing commanders and also was instrumental in changing the attitudes of his old generals many times.

that's a valid point and i already mentioned this before in regards to some infamous German ww2 commanders, notably Manstein.

Hello Al Jassas,

My Top 10:
1- Temujin (Genghis Khan)
2- Alexander the Great
3- Attila the scourge of God
4- Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk)
5- Fatih Sultan Mehmed (the conqueror)

One is Temujin: Because, he founded the greatest empire of all times with his sword. He conquered again and again. We all know that.. And in this way, he's greater than Alexander.
Second is Alexander: Because, he founded a great empire. He conquered Persia and Egypt. His conquers were great but not greater than Temujin's.
Third is Attila: Because, he conquered Barbaria.(Most of Europe) He was the one who was the nearest to conquer Rome. He was successful and there was no block on him to conquer Rome but he didn't.
Fourth is Mustafa Kemal: Because, he won Gallipoli wars. Everbody who knows about military knows that beating bigger forces with so so little forces is almost impossible. But he did that. And he won Independence war against modern and bigger forces of Greeks and other allies with his little and un-modern forces... And his offensive was very succesful, in 9 days he saved all of his country from Greeks.
Fifth is Fatih Sultan Mehmed: Because, he conquered Istanbul. It seemed impossible but he did. It was a greaat succcess.

Originally posted by Young Tatar My Top 10: 1- Temujin (Genghis Khan) 2- Alexander the Great 3- Attila the scourge of God 4- Mustafa Kemal (Ataturk) 5- Fatih Sultan Mehmed (the conqueror) One is Temujin: Because, he founded the greatest empire of all times with his sword. He conquered again and again. We all know that.. And in this way, he's greater than Alexander. Second is Alexander: Because, he founded a great empire. He conquered Persia and Egypt. His conquers were great but not greater than Temujin's. Third is Attila: Because, he conquered Barbaria.(Most of Europe) He was the one who was the nearest to conquer Rome. He was successful and there was no block on him to conquer Rome but he didn't. Fourth is Mustafa Kemal: Because, he won Gallipoli wars. Everbody who knows about military knows that beating bigger forces with so so little forces is almost impossible. But he did that. And he won Independence war against modern and bigger forces of Greeks and other allies with his little and un-modern forces... And his offensive was very succesful, in 9 days he saved all of his country from Greeks. Fifth is Fatih Sultan Mehmed: Because, he conquered Istanbul. It seemed impossible but he did. It was a greaat succcess.

Young Tatar,

Firstly, I must say your top 10 is very interesting, in that it only contains 5 people

I will comment on each on, with my opinion, if that's ok.

1 - Temujin. No quarrels with this choice. Whether he forged the 'greatest' empire is questionable - I personally don't believe it's true, and it's hard to define 'better' anyway.

2- Alexander. Another fine choice.

3 - Attila. I cannot agree on this one. About a year ago, I did a critical study of Attila and his campaigns, coming to the conclusion that his reputation and the fear he instilled far exceeded his real talent and success. Yes he terrified Rome, and other peoples (hence 'Scourge of God'), but he lacked diplomatic, tactical, strategic and logistical aptitude to any degree.  His contemporary 'barbarian' general, Geiseric the Vandal, 'The Rod of God' is to me a far more talented general, administrator and ruler.

4 - Ataturk. He has come up a lot in this thread, mainly advocated by a certain nationality of people. Ataturk was a good leader and general. He achieved successes, indeed. You noted that because he defeated a bigger force (that being 'almost impossible') he is worthy of his position. I can think of a horde of other generals in history who faced greater odds and won. So purely on that ground, Ataturk is not worthy of the 4th greatest commander in history.

5 - Mehmet II. As with the previous 2 generals (possible exception of Ataturk), I would not include Mehmet in my top 100. Taking Constantinople was not impossible - it's Theodosian Walls were largely in disrepair, the sea walls were weaker as-is, the garrison was weak (but definitely defiant) and he had a freaking big cannon His vastly superior force was another major factor in what might be seen as inevitable rather than impossible.


At this point in time, my top 3 consist of Hannibal, Alexander and Genghis. Whilst 1 and 2 are fairly stable, 3 is regularly changing. A notable inclusion into my latest (but still always changing) top 10 is Skenderbeg, so I back-up what a poster said a few posts prior to me.

It's good to return to discussing in this most epic of threads

Regards,

- Knights -

Knights, I wanted to write "TOP 5", so it was just a mistake.
But, I read your critics. It was good, to be criticized is a good thing and your critics were also good. Because you know a lot about military history, so you criticize me about the topics, you know.
But it didn't change my top 5
I still believe in my top 5.
But, thanks


And Temujin, there is a saying about Ataturk: " He was a great commander, but a better leader."

Hello to you all

I come in to say hi to every body. I like this post, I am trying to catch up now!