Napoleon and alexander

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 50,000

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.

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

@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!

@Jermofoot:

@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.

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”

IL that is an invalid comparison.

Alexander CREATED many methods of warfare that worked well with the implements he had in the time he had them.

You can;t then go and say (give Alexander guns and field artillery" and have him go head to head with another 3000 years of military tactics advances.

Hell, Alexander would lose to your average SEARGEANT under those standards.

I never said anything about either general having to be limited to their own technology. The analogy was drawn to remove this possibility. What i meant was if Ceaser or napoleon just “puff” entered Alexanders time and used the same materials but brought their own ideas to how war should be fought they would have succeeded much better than Alexander because they “invented” new military ideas to the world that were never used or considered. So they use the old materials but take the ideas and apply them. What Alexander did in the time of Rome or France was so fully refuted it would have looked like “an old trick”

In this manner we can extrapolate the best Chess player because the ideas from the past in how the Chess game was won or lost ( e.g. the tactics) was very poorly constructed and could have been easily refuted with modern chess theory’s. That is a major reason why Alexander is not the best … because he didn’t stand on the shoulders of history to learn from its experience. This important advantage of reflection would not be possible in Alexanders time because of the limited knowledge before his own time.

This is the only honest way to compare one general from another in different times.

To bring the Chess analogy back for perspective Players like Paul Morphy, or Philidor or even Alekhine would rate as low rated grandmasters by todays standards.

History is replete with examples of using the ideas of the past and learning from them.

Its like comparing a doctor from different centuries but they can only use the same tools to heal. The Modern doctor would have saved many more lives because he studied and came from a greater backround or foundation of knowledge. The first doctor would have drilled holes in the guys head, and the modern doctor would have made a redumentary cast so the skull could heal.

I think it really depends on your views of what makes a great general.  Is it the strategy, tactics, methodology, diplomacy, or combinations of these?  I think Kahn is overlooked by many, because he was considered more of a raider than a general.  If he had the same army and technology, I believe he could hold his own with any of the generals mentioned.  Just my opinion, of course.  :wink:

IL you missed my point.

Yes, I know that we are assuming equal weapons.

But Alexander was a pioneer of battle techniques, and his army mastered those new skill sets.

But in the several thousand years after Alexander, there were improvements, not just weapons, but in tactics.  And Ceaser had the benefit of about 100 years of thsoe advances, Napoleon about 3000 years of those advances.

You would ahve to not only make up for the weapons differences, but also provide a means for Alexander to have access to that 3000 year period of general tactical advances before you could compare him to Napoleon, or somehow remove 3000 years of accumulated global knowledge that Napoleon had access to before he went back in tim to face Alexander.

No thats not true. They were a product of their times. The only equal playing field is materials to wage war… the knowledge of military strategy  is an acute quality of taking the knowledge and applying it in a new way. If you want to educate alexander in modern military strategy thats the same thing as giving him tanks and V-2 rockets to fight the persain empire. Knowledge ( of the development of thought of strategy)  and material ( technology really) are both a resource that must be kept out of the equation to decide who is a better general.

Like I said, its only fair to compare generals from the same time.  For example, lets try……

                                                       George S. Patton vs Erwin Rommel

Both were pioneers in armored warfare and both were very good at it.  So who was the better general?  Post now!!

Well if both had to switch sides. Id say Rommel would have won with much fewer loses and probably got the objective sooner because he understood the idea of mobile warfare better. If Patton had to deal with the italians as his "allies’  he would have shot them or told them to go home and make pizzas for his troops. He hardly understood the idea of making the best of a bad situation, while Rommel allways understood the reality of what he had to work with and could improvise allmost anything on the battlefield from scratch…. However Von Manstein was a greater general than Rommel without question.We never had to face him in battle as he spent all his time in russia.

Wasnt Von Manstein the guy whom did a brilliant regrouping of his forces to retake Kharkov?  Ive read about that before and it was a well executed operation that is sometimes overlooked.

Yes he did this. He was in command of Army group south  from 1941-1943. many of his ideas were held back by hitler, but when he was allowed to do his own thing he suceeded well. Nearly every mistake hitler made was argued against before he made it by manstein but to no avail. Rommel was in a far away area where Hitler hardly understood desert warfare or was comfortable with it. Thats why he was able to do and get away with alot more things that hitler would have frown upon.

Mainstein was in charge of the stalingrad relief force and also commanding at kursk…but in those efforts he hated the method the battle was conducted. He wanted to russians to advance and then cut them off rather than attack a prepared defense.

Manstein was a great at defense. The germans faced incredable odds in 1943 and he was able to hold much of the territory and in some cases retook some back.