dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
Napoleon and alexander
-
i think apples are better than oraganes :-D but thanks i’ll remember to do that next time. what did ceaser do (like what strergies) i know hannibal did the same thing every battle trick the romans into becoming encirled.
-
i think apples are better than oraganes :-D but thanks i’ll remember to do that next time. what did ceaser do (like what strergies) i know hannibal did the same thing every battle trick the romans into becoming encirled.
Hannibal was a great military strategist but when it came to diplomacy, he was very limited. He was good at persuading different people to join his army to fight the Romans. However, when he would attempt to make diplomatic decisions with the Romans, it would just go bad for him. Ceasar was a very good military strategist and also a decent diplomat, this is shown especially when the transformation from the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire happened.
-
Caesar is greatest because he set up an empire that could rule the civilized world for hundreds of years. The other blokes lost the empire once they either died or made mistakes. The Romans were far more systematic and had a much better plan on how to control the world once it was conquered.
But as far as only military battles were concerned only napoleon could be considered great because he gave mankind many more new concepts of warfare ( and i would say complete) as far as the prosecution of war. He understood the concept of total war, logistics, mobility even though he sometimes made mistakes ( in russia)
-
Who added Khan to the options?
(looking for Frimmel’s Avatar in the threads…) :evil:
-
@ncscswitch:
Who added Khan to the options?
(looking for Frimmel’s Avatar in the threads…) :evil:
I didn’t even see the voting…I was going to suggest the Khans.
-
I have to agree with IL. And yes, I realize that Ceasar only converted an existing republic into an empire with republican under-tones. But he did manage to not only establish a living dynasty that encompassed the whole of the known civilized world but also did so after being assassinated for creating it! That means it was strong enough to sustain its existance despite its creator’s death.
-
I have to agree with IL. And yes, I realize that Ceasar only converted an existing republic into an empire with republican under-tones. But he did manage to not only establish a living dynasty that encompassed the whole of the known civilized world but also did so after being assassinated for creating it! That means it was strong enough to sustain its existance despite its creator’s death.
That he did very well but even Ceasar wept knowing that he would never be as great a general as Alexander.
-
Alexanders empire fell immediatly after he died. What kind of general could permit such a thing?
A good general builds his empire to last for centuries. None of that was demonstrated by any of the other choices.
Also, the Romans influenced the world with their domination of it and this influence has no equal by the standards from any other of the choices.
Also, the Romans had to fight a greater share of enemies for a longer time and won.
The influence on ancient warfare is second to none. If the Greeks and Roman legions would have ever net in battle it would have been a disaster for Greece.
If i had to pick another general it would be Kubli Khan who understood total war but too failed to build a systematic empire to tie together the territories of the empire.
Only the Romans of all civilizations created a better place and an enviroment that connected its people on many levels. Roads, Aqueducts, Trade, irrigation, language, Law, technology all developed from the foundations of Rome.
Alexander was not even better than hannibal and the latter was destroyed by Rome.
-
alexander’s empire fell because he died young. he was a charismatic figure who was an excellent general, but he died too young to consolidate his power over the regions he conquered, and he died in the farthest reaches of the empire he created. had he survived his conquests and had a chance to consolidate rule, he would have established a much more lasting empire. so you cant dismiss him because he died young, which is in effect what you are doing
-
i would consider alexanders tactical battle maneuvers to be the best on the list. except for the mongols, who were genuises when it came to tactics.
i think alexanders downfall was his strategic thinking for the long haul.
-
That would make him akin to Yamamoto then…
One of THE best tactical minds of his age, but perhaps one of the worst strategically.
-
If the original question is who was the better general…well, hard to determine. What criteria are we going by?Â
I do not think that considering the duration of an “empire” is a quality that amounts to a good general. Generals win battles, they aren’t expected to create lasting domestic policy.
I still give the honor to the Khans for raw subjugation. The world hasn’t seen anything like that. But it’s true it did not last…
-
what battle did yamamoto win, besides a sneak attack at pearl. which i guess can be stated as the sneak attack as being tactical or tactically sound. because it worked. but what other battle did he win?
was he in the russo-japanese war?
-
Remember what Alexander started from also…
One pissant subject nation. Macedonia, compared to Greece, was far less than what Americans think of Mexico.Alexander first took over Greece, then into Asia Minor, Egypt, Assyria, Persia, and India.
That would be like Mexico taking over the US, Canada, Europe, and Russia in today’s world.
Doesn;t matter if it all fell apart after he died. As a General, he still conquored it all…
-
Agree fully with Jermo and Switch. Generals are supposed to win battles and wars. Alexander did just that. It doesnt matter if his empire lasted. As far as generals are concerned, hes the greatest that ever lived.
-
what battle did yamamoto win, besides a sneak attack at pearl.
British Force Z, 7th US Air Force, Java Sea, Pearl, and of course Midway WOULD have been a tremendous victory for Japan, were it not for our intercept and decode of Japan radio messages…
-
Then a conquest is totally meaningless because a week after you won the battle the conquered nation is fighting you again. What kind of conquest is that? Alexander dies and like 2 seconds latter all those battles are thrown away? at what price victory? Its a hollow victory when your conquest is so temporary that if the winds blows the wrong way everything is lost. A real general is one who conquers with a lasting impression and impact upon the vanquished. Winning a battle with nothing to gain is a folly of manpower and resources.
One of the problems with napolean as a choice is the fact that his ememies basically lost the battle, became french allies and a few months latter formed a new coalition of nations again at war with france.
However, the French clearly won many battles purely on strategy when on all other accounts they were equal or mostly behind in terms of quality and quantity.
Alexander similiarily won such battles but the economy of scale of leadership of these armies was vastly different:
Napolean orchestrated control of up to 500,000 men or more in a campaign. In Russia he had something like 700,000 men plus like another 1/2 million fighting in other parts of the continent…all under his command.
Alexander’s largest army was something like 50,000
I doubt that Alexander could command over a million men w/o an organized system of logistics.
Napoleon invented modern military logistics and understood its value well.
-
@Imperious:
Then a conquest is totally meaningless because a week after you won the battle the conquered nation is fighting you again. What kind of conquest is that? Alexander dies and like 2 seconds latter all those battles are thrown away? at what price victory? Its a hollow victory when your conquest is so temporary that if the winds blows the wrong way everything is lost. A real general is one who conquers with a lasting impression and impact upon the vanquished. Winning a battle with nothing to gain is a folly of manpower and resources.
Iraq, lol.
-
@Imperious:
Alexander’s largest army was something like 50,000
I doubt that Alexander could command over a million men w/o an organized system of logistics.
Napoleon invented modern military logistics and understood its value well.
Thats why Alexander was an impressive general. With such a small army, he made his way from Macedonia all the way to India. Even in todays standards thats awesome. Of course it took him some time, but what doesnt take time when all you can do is walk? :lol:
-
Quote from: Imperious Leader on Today at 06:21:13 PM
Alexander’s largest army was something like 50,000I doubt that Alexander could command over a million men w/o an organized system of logistics.
Napoleon invented modern military logistics and understood its value well.
Conclusion: “Thats why Alexander was an impressive general.”
He cant be a great general because he can “walk” his men. What kind of skill is that? We got people who walk from california to new york just for aids charity. It takes great skill to “invent modern logistics” and the concept of national armies raised with an entire nation geared for the concept of total war. Napolean was by far a more complete general because he could win political as well as military battles. He appointed his relatives in key positions in governments of nations he conquered so that he could continue to control them. Alexander won a battle and had sex with other men while his enemies planned how they would overthrow his yoke once he left. What kind of terrible plan is that?
If you want to argue about small armies beating up on larger armies look into Rorkes Drift and the Zulu wars when the brits had like 117 men against 4,500 savages and WON. So its not about how you fight a battle its about the ENTIRE concept of the strategic plan. How you conquer and keep your enemy conquered must be a the primary representation of sucess. Both in a general consideration of the individual properties of leadership and also in the evolution in how warfare was developed into an evolutionary or systemic practice from the ‘general’ who invented it.
The campaigns of Alexander could not be counted as any advancement of warfare. He ‘used’ the ideas of his day and he did not enlarge upon them something that could be taken as his own. His ideas were not emulated after he departed the scene. So simply their is nothing of value from this man to be learned or placed on the shoulders of the next civilization. It was almost the property of a chapter of “what not to do when you conquer”.He had a small army and also fought small armies. They were nothing compared to say for example Cannae or Battle of Alesia
Suggested Topics
