dfa2c4a2-344a-448b-adea-ed0d9d5ad6a7-image.png
Napoleon and 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
-
yese beacuse alexander had no son and usesd a small amy to desamate the persians he is a completer falire. bush would be a better general. i’m suriped no one mention alexander had teh phlax the 18ft spearmen.
-
@Imperious:
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
Again, I’d point out that strategy and tactics are the job of the general, but domestic policy is not necessarily in their realm. In some cultures and points in history, generals were all-purpose, but they weren’t simply “generals” - more like governors with military ability. Now, there is something to be said for the general who wins the battle without fighting…
Concerning the Zulu wars, a lot of that had to do (some in tactics) with difference between people fighting with guns and people fighting with spears. Overwhelming firepower can give a major advantage, and the Brits were so confident in it that I’m sure their neglect for “best” war practices lead to their defeat by the Zulus at Isandlwana.I’d like a write in for Zhang Fei of the 3 Kingdoms period in China. He held off a much larger army at a bridge by announcing himself so boldly, that an enemy officer had a heart attack and scared the rest of his comrades (his reputation had been trumped up by his blood brother, Guan Yu). Probably an exageration, but that makes the book such a good read!
-
@Imperious:
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
Again, I’d point out that strategy and tactics are the job of the general, but domestic policy is not necessarily in their realm. In some cultures and points in history, generals were all-purpose, but they weren’t simply “generals” - more like governors with military ability. Now, there is something to be said for the general who wins the battle without fighting…
Concerning the Zulu wars, a lot of that had to do (some in tactics) with difference between people fighting with guns and people fighting with spears. Overwhelming firepower can give a major advantage, and the Brits were so confident in it that I’m sure their neglect for “best” war practices lead to their defeat by the Zulus at Isandlwana.I’d like a write in for Zhang Fei of the 3 Kingdoms period in China. He held off a much larger army at a bridge by announcing himself so boldly, that an enemy officer had a heart attack and scared the rest of his comrades (his reputation had been trumped up by his blood brother, Guan Yu). Probably an exageration, but that makes the book such a good read!
Well with some people, they dont allow the information to register into their skulls (cough IL cough). But to each their own! Id prefer not to even compare Alexander against Napoleon. Like I said, comparing a general from the ancient age to a general of the enlightment age is like comparing apples and oranges. Alexander was a great general, in his time. Napoleon was also a great general, in his time. So if youre really going to compare generals, do it in the same timeframe. Makes more sense that way.
-
Yes but thats exactly what we are being asked to do. Decide who is the best across all time. I just believe that military conquest has to mean something once the battle is over. The way the battle is fought and prepared both before and after has everything to do with the quality of a substantive military victory.
add Jermo: the Zulus had plenty of rifles in the battle. They got them off the 1,000 dead soldiers they butchered only a few days before Rorkes Drift. And remember those guns had to be loaded quite often as the magazines were small.
-
@Imperious:
Yes but thats exactly what we are being asked to do. Decide who is the best across all time. I just believe that military conquest has to mean something once the battle is over. The way the battle is fought and prepared both before and after has everything to do with the quality of a substantive military victory.
what about the battle of autzerlitz; austria went to war with france agian. it is said to be napoleon’s greatest victory. i tink yourright but the only battles but that would mean anything were waterloo and teh bombing of hiroshama. i don’t think it’s alexander fault for his empire not being sustained i think if he had a son it would have. and alexanders goal was t conqure asia not to frm a unvirsal govertment withen his final two years of life. geting rifles off dead bodies is like reusing arrows beacuse your out. most of them will be junk.
-
I don’t know how you can argue that Alexander was a poor general. The guy never lost a battle and he fought at the front getting his hands dirty or should I say bloody. The fact that his empire fragmented after he died or he didn’t completely change the style of warfare takes nothing away from his ability to general. The guy new how to command, period.
He had a small army and also fought small armies. They were nothing compared to say for example Cannae or Battle of Alesia
The battle at Gaugamela was large. There was 40 000 plus Macedonians against 100 000 or more Persians. As far as I know, anyhow. As well, the battle against Porus? Poris? in Indian was just as big. There could be others, I don’t know for sure, I’m not a historian.
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?
C,mon, really. No, that’s all Alexander the Great did. He won one battle and had sex… that its…shakes head
What about Caesar? Et tu Brutus and all that… no plotting or backstabbing or overthrowing going on in Imperial Rome.Â
-
I really am not saying hes a poor general only that compared to others who conquered more with much larger armies, and conquered with such a methodology that they in most cases build a lasting control on the vanquished that they would by comparison have an even greater influence on the idea of “greatest general” I dont buy into this concept that “a general is only good for winning a battle” I look into his leadership as a whole not only how he sends his troops or fights himself with a sword.
If Ceaser or Napoleon met Alexander in battle and both brought the evolutionary military concepts that they were credited with either of the first two would have beaten Alexander rather easily. The romans were too disciplined and methodical, while Napoleon would have cut Alexanders supply lines and outflanked him with better use of mobile warfare.
I think alexander could not have coped with 1.3 million men under arms. His army was quite small by modern standards. Against Rome they too were featuring much larger formations in combat. Alexander might have been a good Marshall commanding one of many armies but not “the army”
Suggested Topics
