Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Alexander was overrated
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
Alexander is often listed as the greatest general of all times, but is tactics within a battle were often crude and generally relied on the fact that his father had created the best army in the world. The superiority of the Macedonian troops over their Persian counterparts was the more significant factor. Granted, a bad general could throw away even that advantage, but surely the sign of a great general is one who takes mediocre troops to formidable heights? To draw a modern parallel, anyone could when the Premiership if they had Chelsea's squad.
This in mind, which general achieved the most with the least? -
Message 2
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
Hi Elistan,
I have always been impressed with the performance of the armed forces of Finland when attacked by the Soviets. The Soviet officer corps had been gutted by Stalin. However, I still find General Hjalmar Fridolf Siilasvuo (Colonel at the time) performance at the Battle of Suomussalmi, one of the best all time examples of what determined men with good leadership can accomplish.
Cheerz. -
Message 3
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
Elistan,
I am so glad that such an eminently sensible person as yourself has posted this. I got a lot of flak for suggesting just this on another thread a few months ago. Greek troops had often proved superior to Persians due to their heavy armour and use of the phalanx; Marathon, Plataea and Xenpohon's Anabasis show this. Philip of Macedon further enhanced this advantage through the development of the sarissa.
There is no doubt Alexander was bold, perhaps reckless, and was clearly an inspirational leader, but I have never been convinced about his greatness as a general. He really only had one tactic - use his phalanx to pin the enemy infantry and make a cavalry charge straight for the leader of the opposing army. I wouldn’t knock it, as it worked, but how would he have fared against better opponents? His strategic thinking was not clever, either. His march through the desert all but destroyed his army. He probably deserves the title "the Great" as a great conqueror, a great king and a great leader, but not, in my opinion, as a great general.
There is a theory that Parmenio was the brains behind Alexander's early victories. It is certainly interesting to note that his greatest triumphs were achieved before he had Parmenio killed.
For me, Hannibal showed greater ability as a general although not, ultimately, as a strategist. This was principally because he was against far more formidable opponents in the Romans whose political stability meant that their "empire" did not collapse even when they suffered crushing defeats. Few of their allies deserted them, even after Cannae. Hannibal's strategy was therefore completely undermined, although his tactical genius is, i my view unsurpassed. At Zama, he came up against another great general who had better troops and still it was a close run thing. -
Message 4
Posted by HistoricallyInclined (U2629030) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
expat32,
Agreed! The Finnish fight against the Soviets was admirable. Nobody thought that they would last as long as they did, because really, when you think of Finland, the first thing that comes into your mind isn't military strength/prowess, is it?
Also, I've always admired the performance of the Canadian/British troops during the Battle of Hong Kong. They fought like tigers despite being outnumbered and still green behind the ears. -
Message 5
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 1st December 2005
History
The Finns has a very long and distinguished military history,but under the Swedish banner.
Some of the toughest troops for example in the 30 year war was Finns.
When the Swedish and Russian expansion collided in 13 cent aproximate at the place of nowdays St Petersburg,was their to be nearly a continious battle for more than 500 years.
Battles was fought in this time between the city of Wiborg(Vipuuri) to Moscow,the frontier moving between Wiborg and east of Ladoga,the brunt of this fighting was naturaly made by Finnish troops.
So the Finns warrecord are second to non in Europa.
Hasse -
Message 6
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Hi,
Thanks for your contributions
Personally I think Mustafha Kemal's defence of the Dardanelles, both in the Balkan Wars of 1911-1913 and during the infamous Gallipoli debacle of 1915 marks him out as one of the best field commanders of that period. His intuitive use of his troops to react to events as they happen was almost unique in the context of military thinking of the time, which seems to have largely involved setting the ball rolling and then standing back and watching to see if it hit any pins. I have always thought of WWI military planning as being akin to deciding all your moves in a game of chess in advance, placing them in a sealed envelope to be opened at the appropriate turn, without any consideration of your opponents actions. Ataturk reconnaited himself and made decisions on piecemeal troop deployment action by action, thus twarting the inept efforts of the British military (Officers).
For an ancient choice, my money would go to Belisarius of the sixth century Byzantine Empire, who recaptured North Africa from the Vandals, Rome from the Ostrogoths and secured the Eastern frontier against the Persians. Each of these campaigns were undertaken on complex and adaptive tactical basis as the Roman army of that day was by no means overpowering. By astute use of his cavalry and exploitation of forfications Belaisarius managed to recapture the west with a quarter of the numbers the arabs employed a century later.
For a single battle, I have always liked the way that the English cavalry was neutralised at the battle of Bannockburn through an intelligent choice of terrain and an understanding of the mentality of the knights. Causing the cavalry to bottleneck in marchy ground before sending the gallowglases to hamstring their mounts was a stroke of genius, and able illustrates how one best exploit the tools to hand, even if they appear inferior on paper.
Elistan -
Message 7
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Elistan - you would know this - to end an e-mail discussion. Did the Persians employ cavalry at Platea or not, and if so surely not from his Indian satrapy, as is being argued with me?
As for Alexander, does post war action come into judgment? He did after all have 20 000 men of Tyre crucified - or am I wrong there? -
Message 8
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Priscilla,
Check out this site
Persian cavalry are mentioned as being present, but ineffective. -
Message 9
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Elistan
Agreed about Belosarus he is high on my list.
The battle of Daras a masterpiece,and his manouvering with an inferior army against the persian invasion so the persians was forced to whitdraw staved and haunted whitout being able to plunder or give battle tactic on interior lines at it top.
Hasse -
Message 10
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
Elistan has gone a long way of irrelevant messages, I have nothing against him and his reduced imagination but then.... calling Alexander the Great a .. general (?!?!?!) and ... raising Kemal as a better strategist is in the sphere of the ridiculous.
No that has nothing to do with Greek-and-proud things (I know the usual argument of some).
Alexander never claimed to be a strategist. What he claimed to be was the Greatest of all human beings till then and to eternity, he claimed to be a God and he is the only one that deserves mostly that title having taken it (and not given after his death by any propagandist...). If you do not like that, then it is ok, there are figure like ... Kemal Atatourk to admire... aaaamazing!
General? Of course it was Parmenion behind his victories, who said the opposite? Parmenion was the guy that helped Philip convert the Theban side phalanx into the formidable Macedonian Phalanx - some say that it was 100% his own invention. It was Parmenion that started it all since Macedonia was a conquered kingdom to barbarians from the north (to be precise there is still no prove that Dardanians were literally barbarians) and southern federations... when he swept from north to south.
But the soldiers knew only one name. Alexander. They loved him like a God. They loved him even more than his father who started it all. Of course Philip would have done the some thing with that army. But the army fought for Alexander. They did not do it for Parmenion but for Alexander. Seening their leader rushing into the battle was only raising their adrenaline to the maximum thus rushing also inside the battle - none would ever think 'this is a reckless young leader'... Reckless leader? The way he dealt the situation with restless Persian nobles and tribes of modern Afganistan was just another paradigm that this leader coped with armies as well with guerillas.
His march through the dessert cannot be judged by today's standards. Do not forget that his 80.000 army by then was more than 60% local mercenaries (that could not start from one day to the other to work succesfully the Greek way) and less than 40% were Greeks.
PS: Dear Priscilla for your information, Tyros men were not crusified, just killed for resisting the army. Alexander was a minor slayer in comparison to any other in all times. In fact he did what he did with the minimum of slaughters and that is a fact difficult to deny. However, despite the fact that slaughters was not in his everyday schedule, he had no time for resistances of minor cities (Tyros was relatively large but then minor in front of the Persian empire). Along with Tyros there was a large number prepared to resist. By slaying 20,000 of Tyros he pressed phychologically most of the rest of the cities to surrunder. Thus as a tactic it was successful, after all that is what happens in sieges isn't it?
Now if you want slayers why do not you search for the past of Kemal Atatourk that so much dear Elistan loves? 1.000.000 Armenians slaughtered in 1918 plus 300,000 Greek of Black Sea, then other 1,000,000 Greeks exterminated plus some 300,000 died in the concentration camps in east Anatolia - you know these camps that inspired Hitler.
... the above in order to know a bit more before we talk anything... -
Message 11
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Friday, 2nd December 2005
... the rest of you please continue your views, my views are more or less on the above lines, there is no need for raising another discussion in here about Kemal who was he really what he did and how.
... this is an anyway useless discussion that started by one's dislike on the fact that Alexander is considered universally the greatest man that ever walked the earth. Of course, everyone may have his favourite but then you cannot change some things... -
Message 12
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Nikolaos we know you are obsessed with the Armenian massacre but of course this is totally irrelevant to whether Ataturk was a great general
-
Message 13
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
That is true, that is why I said we keep on commenting...
-
Message 14
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
I think daring and luck have always played a big part in establishing the reputations of great generals, and Alexander certainly had both.
The poor quality of the Persian army (and the fact that Darius ran away on 2 out of 3 occasions) makes it a bit difficult to judge him by the battles, but let's not forget the Siege of Tyre. Here, Alexander captured an apparently invincible fortress by constantly coming up with new methods to foil the skilful stratagems of the defenders. It was a triumph of willpower and determnation. Here's a potted description based on Arrian:
s%20what%20Things/siege_of_tyre.htm -
Message 15
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Niclolaos,
If you had any credibility left (and with me you do not ) I suspect that it has evaporated with many board members. Elistan is a Historian with no axe to grind, and when you attack an individual of his expertise on the this board you only make yourself look comical. Why don't you get off your Greekie self worship and join reality.
Cheerz. -
Message 16
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Expat, you are one that claims that Americans are not imperialists but... liberators!!!! Thus you are the last to talk about "credibilities"!!!
Everything I have said can be traced back in texts and proofs if you ever had the courage to do a real research.
I do not know if Elistan is a historian, I have heard a lot of "historians" talking so amazingly naive stuff that the mere mentioning that one is historian means nothing to me.
If Elistan was a true historian he would not have started that discussion - a historian would never mention Alexander as a ... general!!!
As for you dear Expat, I can read with pleasure yourdescriptions of the American armies, what weaponry they carry, how are the divisions, sometimes you are very informative but then, any effort of yours to provide a deeper analysis on events is way out of reality. It is not your fault, anyway you come from a country where an increasing number of people believes in the 6000 years cosmos. -
Message 17
Posted by expat32 (U2025313) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Nikolaos,
I have no intention of giving you the attention you crave, or dignifying any of your posts with a rebuttal. You can save that for someone who cares anything of what you have to say.
Goodbye, and I mean, Goodbye. -
Message 18
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
It always strikes me as most odd that one man is overlooked with shameful frequency when discussions concerning 'greatest generals' pops up on these boards: I'd like to throw the name of Subodai Baatar into the mix, if anyone was worthy of Basil Liddell Hart's ambitious claim for Scipio Africanus (ie "Greater Than Napoleon" read as 'the best general ever' according to Liddell Hart) then Subodai may be the man. The documentary sources for his career are not extensive, but can we really regard the likes of Arrian, Curtius, Polybius, Livy, Caesar et al as more reliable than Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔr (doh!)?
-
Message 19
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Nikolaos,
I have no intention of giving you the attention....
....Goodbye, and I mean, Goodbye.Β
... 9 out of 10 people on this earth are flying into the heavens when they hear that from an American.
I care the less, normally I would not comment much on what you said though I keep seeing a large number of 'jewels' of yours herein. It was you who enterred 'uninvited' (way of saying of course, here everyone is invited) into a discussion of mine and tried to negatively comment on my sayings despite the fact that you knew you were totally ignorant of the facts I was reffering too. You did that not because you had anything relative to add.
It is not bad to be ignorant of something, I am also ignorant on many things. I can still talk about an issue I know vaguely but then I will reckognise my vagueness, then if I am proved to be mistaken I will say so. -
Message 20
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 3rd December 2005
Thjodolf I am also very keen into the eastern strategists that naturally go in a secondary place in the west. Afterall when battles in our neighbourhood were between armies ranging from 500men to maximum 20,000-50,000 men in East Asia of 400 B.C. the average army size in a battle among average sized kingdoms started from 100,000, then you had everything... campaigns, sieges, technology, espionage, complex diplomacy: Sun Tzu shows that the eastern strategists must have been more progressed (though that is always relative) in the field of 'strategy development'.
-
Message 21
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Priscilla,
There was indeed Persian cavalry at the battle of Plataea, led by Masistius. My research indicts that he was a high-ranking Persian, i.e. of the aristocracy based in modern day Iran. Commentators refer to him as being second only to Mardonius, the Persian C-in-C, in stature and standing. His death on the first assualt upon the Megarean position (killed by Athenian reinforcements) marked the end of the cavalry's involvement in the battle. I don't think the cavalry were from the Indian Satrapy, and at least their leader was not. I hope that helps.
Elistan -
Message 22
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 5th December 2005
E_Nikolaos_E,
As usual you have wilfully missed the point of the thread so that you can launch yourself on your nationalistic soapbox. It doesn't matter how many times you try to qualify your comments as being objective and balanced your subsequent diatribe always marks out the narrowness of your own imagination. The question originally posed was whether of Alexander deserved to be included in a list of great generals, which I would personally define as a list of field commanders, as illustrated by their strategic and tactical nous in the heat of battle.
Alexander, for me, was a consummate politician and leader of men, but 'the greatest of all human beings till then and to eternity?' Please! He claimed to be a god when it was politically astute to do so, since the further east one traveled the more closely monarchy became associated directly with divinity. The fact that the first such pronouncement took place in the deserts of Egypt should go some way to illustrating this point. Some commentators believe that Alexander started to believe his own propaganda by the time he was in the Hindu Kush, and particularly after the victory at Soghdian Rock, but others also claim that he was a complete lush who was rarely ever sober enough to make an informed decision.
The superiority of the Greek/Macedonian soldier over their Persian counterpart had been illustrated again and again before Alexander. The fact that he could swing the might of those arms into action is what marked him out. I have a lot of respect for his achievements, and especially his openness to the concept of intergration of variant cultures (a concept you could do well in adapting) under his sway. If the postive image of his supposed 'One World' philosophy is to be believed then the world was done a great disservice by his death. Whether he could have stopped fighting and governed with wisdom and tolerance will always be the great unanswered question.
Back to the thread, what I was trying to highlight, and to draw commentary on, was individuals who succeeded militarily, in the field, with troops that on paper one would not have backed at the outset. In this light, whatever misgivens who has about the rest of his life, Kemal defence of the Dardanelles, especially against the might of the Britsh Navy and Commonwealth troops, deserves recognition, within the parameters of this discussion. Your inability to be impartial when it comes to weighing evidence and your general habit of resorting to personal attack whenever anyone so much as whispers a piece of criticism against your sanctified Greek heritage does you a great disservice, both as a scholar and as an individual. You clearly have the intellect but I am afraid you equally clearly lack the temperament for polite discussion. I echo Expat: Goodbye E_Nikolaos_E, I will not respond to one of your nationalistic diatribes again.
Elistan -
Message 23
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Elistan
I made a point previously about the Siege of Tyre but I think it got lost in the general mayhem. Would you agree that this was one of Alexander's greatest victories, and a much better test of his generalship than the various battles against the Persians? It has always impressed me anyway. -
Message 24
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Elistan, my thanks. I owe you a drink! My own research had been fruitless. I shall pass on the detail with relish.
As to your last entry - the information bit - too many empires have tried for a one world scenario in one guise or another. To paraphrase a quote I read yesterday in another context, 'Patriotism is a fine thing, Nationalism stinks!'
Regards P. -
Message 25
Posted by priscilla (U1793779) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Since I raised Tyre first - not with great knowledge, I admit - I have always thought the resistance to Alexander commendable - especially since Sidon had left it isolated and been coerced into fighting them. There is something a tad unworthy about seige-breaking is there not?
Alexander's ingress into India however, is remarkable though. The site of Taxila is impressive - the Ghandaran development was, though, surely more his followers doing than Alexander's. Locals still speak of "Iskander" as if he only left last week!
Now I shall go as I know little more.
Regards P. -
Message 26
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th December 2005
I do not understand the line of thought of Elistan and honestly if he says I am a nationalist then I say he has complexes towards Alexander. No I am not against people critising Alexander, that is good not bad but this way is not critiscism but swearing (mentioning the name of slaughterer 'kemal' next to Alexander is pure swearing and it is not appropriate for one that wants ot be called 'historian' whatever that means.
Why would one raise a question if Alexander was a general or not... it is the same as saying 'is the top executive of IBM a good middle manager?'. Imagine a consultant going to IBM's director and start judging him with middle-management criteria, that will be ridiculous!
Now as much for the superiority of the Greek armies, in a sense that is true but then it is easy to overgeneralise: first, the superiority was not something taken for granted but won in each battle (it is easy afterwards to say that oh yes they were anyway superior) and more difficult to say before the battle of Gaugamela (or how you call that otherwise) were the persian army was up to 10times bigger than Alexander's equiped with anything on earth (not to mention that at most battles Persians had also attached with them 'superior greek armies'.
Persians had not built an empire with a crap army and were no unworthy in war. Their fighting style was suited to a more decentralised methodology: the funny thing is that the same fighting style that Persian had (increased cavalry, cavalry archers etc.) and was proven inefficient against the heavily armoured Greek phalanx was used by Atilla only so successfully (cos he used it in a decentralised way) against the Romans (that down to basics were still using similar war tactics to greeks).
That is a nice example how one difference can raise one war style above the other. Greek phalanxs were a defensive style of war: Persians should have avoided head to head confrontations thus their mistakes were on their generic strategy and not on their armies inferiority. And Alexander as a strategist (and not a ... general) was only so succesful in dragging the enemy in doing these mistakes.
As for Elistan's dislike on what I said on Alexander...
well... show me a greater man on earth? Perhaps... Kemal.. or Hitler? Niiiiiiiiice!
I do not know what happened in pre-cataclysmic times, or if the mythologies about Hermes Trismegistus (the man who became god), Dionysus (the man who said to led an army from Athens to India 1000s of year before Alexander) or Gulgames (the man who wanted become immortal) or Krisna in India or whoever else in pre-history was greater than Alexander... from what we know and what we have Alexander is the only one that deserves the title not only Great but God: its a title he earned himself and while living and at a very young age.
PS: How much historian you are it is obvious from your "Greek/Macedonian soldier" distinction. You only forgot to say "Greek/Efesian", "Greek/Byzantine", "Greek/Athenian", "Greek/Syracusean", "Greek/Theban", "Greek/Thessalian", "Greek/Cypriot", "Greek/Epirot", "Greek/Akragantian", "Greek/Odessan", "Greek/Miletian",
you are funny from times to times. If you are a historian I would like to learn the university you went... perhaps university of Texas or Aiowa???? Hahahahah -
Message 27
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Yes I am impartial but not more than you.
Now referring to Kemal, I only need to mention that English and French troops in the Balcans in WWII only did tourism thus it is not surprising that Kemal managed to defend, whatever victory was gained in the area was because of the Greek forces (I do not think I need to describe in details how the english+french forces fully equiped could not occupy the bulgaro-germanic forces were staying for weeks sitting and saying "these fortresses are impenetrable"....until a smaller and less equiped greek force arrived and occupied the fortresses by the end of the day. Were the Greeks Gods and did it or was it the natural indifference of the allied forces who did not exactly know why they were there (not talking about soldiers but also about higher officers)?
Trust me, the WWI and what followed in the area was much more complex than the 'bam-boum-kiofte' you think. Kemal was a great leader, he was of course no Turk, and what he did (military victories and genocide) he did it mainly because of his "international connections". -
Message 28
Posted by Elistan (U1872011) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Elistan
I made a point previously about the Siege of Tyre but I think it got lost in the general mayhem. Would you agree that this was one of Alexander's greatest victories, and a much better test of his generalship than the various battles against the Persians? It has always impressed me anyway.Β
Gaiseric,
I would concur with you on that. It is true that Darius never really tested Alexander in the field, and so maybe his successes at sieges could be used as a better yardstick. His versatility at Tyre was only matched by his stubbornness. An interesting fact about the siege of Tyre is that Alexander justified it by claiming the right to worship at a shrine to Heracles in the town, being Heracles descendent. Curiously Philip had used a similar tactic as justification for initiating a border conflict with one of the Macedonians northern neighbours. Father like Son, eh?
Despite what another contributor to this thread may think I hold Alexander in high regard, and his assault on Soghdian was genius. I do not dispute his accolade of Great, gifted him by posterity for more than just his skill as a strategos. My initial gambit was meant as a context for the thread as a whole. If Alexander has this status of greatest general for victories against superior odds, who else could we identify as having an equal if not greater claim. My choice of Kemal, which so ensensed our Hellenic, was based solely on my own study of the battle of Gallipoli. Likewise, Belisarius came to my attention through a paper I prepared. The bannockburn one I have to admit a certain amount of Braveheart-ism. I apologise if anyone else was offended by my gambit or selection.
Elistan -
Message 29
Posted by TonyG (U1830405) on Monday, 5th December 2005
Elistan,
In terms of the original intention of this thread, would Leonidas qualify? OK. he lost, but given the odds aganst him, he still did extraordinarily well and, had the Persians not been shown a way round the pass, he might have held them up a lot longer.
I would agree with Belisarius as a superb general.
Sorry for bringing another Greek into it. I dare say our friend Nikolaos will have something to say on this. I have had words with him in another thread, too. -
Message 30
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Tuesday, 6th December 2005
There are one or two interesting attempts to recreate Subodai's campaigns into the West: if we treat them with caution then it is hard to place any general from the classical world above him. The sheer scale of the campaign of 1237-41 suggests that Subodai was a true genius of warfare: the destruction of the Russian principalities; advancing into eastern Europe along a 600 mile front and the masterpiece that was the annihilation of Bela IV and the Hungarian army at the Tiszla. The earlier raid into southern Russia which climaxed with an overwhelming victory on the Kalkha River: surely the greatest cavalry campaign of all time. Basil Liddell Hart summation of Subodai's career would be staggering for a conqueror like Alexander, but for a subordinate commander "65 pitched battles fought and won and 32 nations conquered" is a simply mind-boggling resume.
-
Message 31
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Tuesday, 6th December 2005
Nikolaos, responding to your comments on Persian army:
The Persians army can't be compared to those of the Huns (or Skythians) which consisted mostly of horse archers. It was a combined-arms operation with heavy and light cavalry backed up by a miscellany of bow and spear armed infantry in static positions. The hit & run style of horse archer armies "avoiding head to head confrontations" was hardly an option for this type of army. And if (as you say) they really did outnumber the enemy 10 to 1 they would hardly have wanted to do that anyway.
I never said the Persian army was "crap" - maybe with the right leadership they could even have won. But the infantry was a weak point as shown by their reliance on Greek mercenaries. Unfortunately for them, these mercenaries were the old spear-armed type, and no match for the new-fangled pike phalanx developed by Philip of Macedon. The latter was certainly not a defensive formation, it was designed to attack and break through lines of armoured hoplites. -
Message 32
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Tuesday, 6th December 2005
Thjodolf
Subodai a very good example of a good general and cavalry leader.
Personally do I rank Timur Lenk higher as a general,and Djingis khan as an imperiebuilder,but all three rank at least par with Alexander.
Hasse -
Message 33
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 6th December 2005
Gaiseric, the hit and run tactic was a known tactic to Persians that had fights with Skythians as well as incorporated some of them in their army together with other rider-archers from other tribes. That is decpited in numerous pictures were Persians are shown on horses using the bow turning in the back and shooting against the Greek riders behind them that hunt them with a spear ... that is a classic depiction of a hit and run tactic (as well as how to counter attack it) that later touranic tribes used against the Romans.
Of course that does not mean that Persians used the tactic overwhelmingly like Atila but they indeed did used it quite regularly.
What made Persians lose is their bad strategy (the pride of their aristocracy) and not their low military abilities. They did not built an empire out of nothing! Greeks always respected their abilities despite the swearings of the style "Persians are lazy, they do not train properly for war". The fact that Greeks beat them like that is only a sign that Greeks had indeed the best tactics and the best strategy - that is how you win not by having a superior quality soldiers and that kind of things... these belong to the imagination of some. For example, the quality of the Roman armies that conquered Greece was pathetic - if one sees their equipment and fighting styles it was less than pathetic (it had nothing to do with later impressive Roman armies). But it was their politics that made up for that to the maximum. Greeks were divided to the last Greek ... Romans were united and made the right friendships. Thus sooner or later prevailed. -
Message 34
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Tuesday, 6th December 2005
And yes to be precise, the macedonian phalanx indeed was more offensive than the traditional, but since it came out of the latter it inherently had that nature - apart Alexander most other conquerors utilised much more offensive and mobile armies (horses or light infantry raiders) in a more decentralised methods.
-
Message 35
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
I suppose Timur's empire building skills were on a par with Alexander's: both empires, with breathtaking speed, but effectively disintegrated with the death of the creator. Chinggis Khan's empire continued to expand for another generation at least. I have to disagree as to Timur being the greater general than Subodai, though great he certainly was. Subodai's invasion of eastern Europe following the Russian campaign was a masterpiece of strategic planning. Of course, Subodai, Chinggis, Timur et al, harnessed (almost a pun!) the skills and fighting styles of the steppe nomads magnificently, each no doubt adding their own distinct touches. Although I've always considered the maarch through the Kizil Kum desert by Chinggis and Subodai to appear 500 miles behind enemy lines to be one of history's greatest out-flanking manouvres, my all time favourite is Urianqatai's flanking move against the Sung: if he'd outflanked them anymore he would have discovered America! Oh, he was Subodai's grandson as well.
-
Message 36
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
Thjodolf
I do rank Timur higher since his tartars,not only did beat the mongols,first he rebbeled against the yat mongols and his later manouvres against Toktamish and his in menpower stronger golden horde before he did break them and their power for all time,is a masterpiece.
Timur outmanouvred and beat that times superpower the turks in a massive offensive,breaking the persians and the chaliphate enpassant.
Timurs troops did ewen make mincemeat of the strongest European army of that time Lithuania.
In other words taking on more diverse,foes than Subodai.
Subodai had also as good help the sheer terror of the mongol name stood him in good steed.
I do also agre that other great generals like Gutaf Adolphus,Napoleon,Patton did study Subodai.
Quite a few not at least the Gustaf did also study Timur.
So still I stand with my rating,altough I do agree tounge in cheek that it is a toss up between those three.
Hasse -
Message 37
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Wednesday, 7th December 2005
Subodai's list of opponents included the various tribes of Mongolia, the Chinese, the Khwarazm Turks, Persians, Cumans/Kipchaks and sundry other steppe nomadic confederations, Georgians, Russians, and the utter annhilation of the Hungarian army (the finest cavalry army in Europe). Timur did indeed beat 'mongols', but he was desperate to associate himself with the lineage of Chinggis Khan, and he did not fight a 'mongol' empire or army of the like that Chinggis and Subodai had controlled: to compare Toktamish to any other founders of the Mongol Empire is to suspend belief. The "sheer terror of the mongol name" which you point to was, to a large degree created by Subodai's own campaigns: the first raid into Russia, the destruction of Bulghar, and then the 'Russian' phase of the 1237-41 campaign were brilliant examples of generalship; terror was very much part of the strategy. Timur was indeed a great general; the empire he created was very much held together by the force of his personality, and just like Alexander's, it disintegrated with his death.
-
Message 38
Posted by Hasse (U1882612) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Thjodolf
I think we kan agree that Djinghis was the best empirebuilder of those three.
To deside wich was the best general between Subodai or Timur,must you split realy fine hairs.
Neither you or I will probably change our minds on this matter.
So let us end this discussion agreeing all three will probably rank in the top ten and are sadly negleckted in the western history.
Hasse -
Message 39
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
For an ancient choice, my money would go to Belisarius of the sixth century Byzantine Empire, who recaptured North Africa from the Vandals, Rome from the Ostrogoths and secured the Eastern frontier against the Persians. Each of these campaigns were undertaken on complex and adaptive tactical basis as the Roman army of that day was by no means overpowering. By astute use of his cavalry and exploitation of forfications Belaisarius managed to recapture the west with a quarter of the numbers the arabs employed a century later.
·΅±τΎ±²υ³Ω²Ή²ΤΜύ
i agree with this, Belisarius is supposed to have had tactical genius equal to that of Hannibal, and his ability to cope with different enemies across a massive expanse of terrritory, from nineveh to carthage to ravenna and back again, using a military force that varied greatly, and still managing to defeat the Vandals and goths, and keep the sassanids in check, despite his emporer rather fickle support marks him as one of the greats -
Message 40
Posted by PaulRyckier (U1753522) on Thursday, 8th December 2005
Re: message 39.
Marduk,
is that you Gilgamesh?
Kind regards. -
Message 41
Posted by Thjodolf (U1900675) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Nothing wrong with a bit of hair splitting surely? And you are right, I won't be changing my mind on the matter
I would say your assessment that Chinggis, Timur and Subodai have been sadly neglected by western historians is almost accurate - replace "sadly" with "shamefully" and we'll be in full agreement
best wishes -
Message 42
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 9th December 2005
Re: message 39.
Marduk,
is that you Gilgamesh?
Kind regards.Β
nope, im some one different........
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.