|
| Thread: For those of you who like history... |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · «PREV |
|
frostwolf
Famous Hero
livin' in a bottle of vodka
|
posted June 08, 2004 11:41 PM |
|
|
Well, I want to say that Gengis Khan single handedly cated the world's largest empire, even though only trough conquest and not administration later on. He created a military strategy that had proved superior to any other at the time, and in fact was almost the best strategy ever created, only Attila's huns had something similar. He composed his army mainly (entirely at the begining) of light cavalry, mostly archers. This way, his army had the advantege of beeing the fastest, most manouvrebale army at the time, beeing able to shoot enemy troops and never be reached. This amazing army, the mongol horde, was controlled by an amazing general, who knew to make the best of it. Later on, Gengis used infantry( mostly coreean), but mainly in the purpose of siege engineering. He managed to conquer almost all of Asia, the main exception beeing India, which he didn't attack because he simply hated the hot air and muddy waters, and did not want such a land. He defeated the russians several times, and reached so far as (nearly) northen Italy. It was the largest, fastest, most deadly army ever seen.
There's a lot more to say on this, I (again) don't have enough time. Unfortunetly, the mongol invasion is generally disconsidered by european historians, as it was short lived and did not have great repercursions. The only good sources are the russian ones, but they are mostly not translated in other languages. Howewer, the mongol empire proves that a horde of barbaric nomads, lead by an illiterate general, a brilliant none the less, manage to conquer most of the world
____________
What can you expect from a world where everybody lives because they're too afraid to commit suicide?
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 08, 2004 11:57 PM |
|
|
It's mostly not considered on the basis that whilst the strategy was sucsessful, in terms of building an empire, it was self defeating, the empire could not have lasted forever or even past a few generations given as you said the woeful infrastructure. As you said, the impact on the western world and further into the history that came later was slight, unlike Alexander's effect. (which covered less time) It always amused me though to read of when Europe was on the verge of being overrun by one of the Mongol hordes when the leader of the time died, that apparently meant that they had to go back to their homeland to bury him and elect another... just gave Europe and Asia time to recover, all over a death!
I would though mention that part of the reason why it was so sucessful lay in the nature of their opponents at the time. Conqering Russia then was relatively made easy by the fact that "Russia" did not really exist politically and really consisted of little more than a string of city states for much of the Medieval period. By the same token when the Mongols did reach central Europe, they found a christian europe divided and fighting amongst itself as well as the mongols. Though some multi-national forces were thrown in their way, the European enemies that they met were frequently loosing the campaign before they began it. Had they struck during a time when Rome or Charlemenge controlled europe the effect might have been different due to the control either empire had over the events.
Woock:
Interesting point, however his career in command of campaigns is limited to the insurrection, so it's difficult to say what precise qualities he posessed when given independant command, though he seems sucessful. I would also forward Poniatowski, the only Marshal of France to have been born outside of France as a good Polish candidate, but neither I would rate higher than Wellington or Lee.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 12:17 AM |
|
|
I would further point out that the Mongol empire was not the largest empire the world has ever seen. That title goes to the British Empire, though you could say the Mongol empire was the largest land based empire in one entity. The site below shows that at the height of each the British Empire was roughly 1.3 million square miles larger 
http://ellone-loire.net/obsidian/earthrul.html
To put that in perspective, you could say that the difference between the two empires was the size of the Selucid empire that suceeded Alexander (though obiously Alexander's empire was slightly larger than that) 
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 02:19 PM |
|
|
I saw that someone mentioned Alexander and his father here. Alexander's father (was it Fillip? Let's just call him that, for the sake of simlicity) revolutionized greek warfare.
Before Fillip, the Greek armies main unit was the phalanx: Infantry with very heavy plate armour, heavy shields and long spears (I think their armour weighed ca. 30 kg, but i may, as always be wrong).
But a few years prior to Fillips asenction to the throne, a young Greek millitary commander called Xenophon went campaigning in todays Turkey. This is btw the same Xenophon who later came to be known as author of one of the three known written scources about Socrates (the other two being Plato and Aristophanes).
But Xenophon also wrote something else. During his campaign, he met barbarian tribes, who amongst other things used cavalery and archers in combat. These things he wrote about (I think...) i a book.
Anyway, when Fillip became king of Macedonia, he came across Xenophons memoirs of the campaign, and he was fascinated by what he read.
So he made a new army, which wasn't like the old Greek ones. He included the phalanx, of course, but he reinforced the phalanxes with support from archers and cavalery.
This was the basis for Alexanders "empire", if you can call it that.
But back to the topic.
In deciding who is the best millitary commander of all times, we have to remember that there are two aspects of warfare: strategy and tactics (you all probably know this, but I'll mention it anyway).
Tactics is the disposition and movemnet of forces during battle, while strategy is logistics, goals for the campaign, moving forces between battles, and so on.
To be a good commander, you'll have to be good at both things. But VERY few generals, etc. are.
So it's kind hard to decide who the best is, especially in modern times, when politicians make most of the strategic decicions.
But if I'll have to pick one, I'll have to go for Wellington, since he was able to (and now I'm just guessing, since it's been a while since I read about this) "liberate" and hold Spain during the Napoleonic wars.
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Wiseman
Known Hero
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 06:37 PM |
|
|
Inteesting discussion you have here.Anyway I would like to mention Gustav Adolf (sp?).
Also I would like to ask you, military history experts
(actually there`s only privatehudson ) what`s your take
on Leonidas.I mean you always hear that story about him
stoping a massive Persina army with only 300 soldiers in
that tight spot( Thermopiles was it) for few days.I`m interested in what the actual figures were.
____________
Truth may be out there, but lies are inside your head.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 06:42 PM |
|
|
My friend I believe the first person you refer to is known commonly (at least here in the UK and probably in english speaking nations) as Gustavus Adolphus
On Leonidas I will get back to soon when I get a moment.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 06:43 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Interesting point, however his career in command of campaigns is limited to the insurrection
Are you sure? I thought that Kosciuszko did play a certain role in the history of the you es of ay.
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 07:06 PM |
|
|
Oh he did, I meant that as an independant commander his experience was limited to the insurrection. He proved his talents a lot in the american rebellion, but not as a general in sole command.
____________
We're on an express elevator to Hell, goin' down!
|
|
Lord_Woock
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Daddy Cool with a $90 smile
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 08:39 PM |
|
|
Oh. Right. Well, thanks for clearing that up
____________
Yolk and God bless.
---
My buddy's doing a webcomic and would certainly appreciate it if you checked it out!
|
|
frostwolf
Famous Hero
livin' in a bottle of vodka
|
|
posted June 09, 2004 10:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Inteesting discussion you have here.Anyway I would like to mention Gustav Adolf (sp?).
Also I would like to ask you, military history experts
(actually there`s only privatehudson ) what`s your take
on Leonidas.I mean you always hear that story about him
stoping a massive Persina army with only 300 soldiers in
that tight spot( Thermopiles was it) for few days.I`m interested in what the actual figures were.
The battle of Thermopile was not that great in itself. But it proves one thing: it shows that the spartan hoplites were the best infantry at the time, and probably one of the most courageous, most disciplined and most deadly soliders that ever existed. The battle is proof that a handful of warriors, being trained to become elite, under the command of a skilled general, can hold out in front of a massive enemy, but whose soliders are only conscripts. To make it easyer, think about a level 10 hero with a black dragon as it's army fighting a level 1 hero with let's say 50 pixies.
____________
What can you expect from a world where everybody lives because they're too afraid to commit suicide?
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 11:44 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Inteesting discussion you have here.Anyway I would like to mention Gustav Adolf (sp?).
Gustav Adolf, the Swedish king, wasn't it?
I seem to remember from Montgomery's "A History of Warfare" that Gustav Adolf was the "father" of the 18th century army, since he drilled his mostly peasant army into one of the most effective of his time. And he was one of the first commanders to bring food with him on his campaign, instead of just living off the land, as most other armies at this time.
Am I correct, or do I remember wrongly?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 10, 2004 11:32 PM |
|
|
On Leonidas, what is good to remember is that the Hoplite formation is nigh on impossible to defeat if it holds formation and cannot be flanked by anything other than another Hoplite. The persian army tended during this period to use very light infantry without the reach to attack Hoplites as they used swords. Now look at the battlefield, the Spartans fought defending a pass at it's narrowest front, requiring the Persians to attack their front and making it impossible to attack their flanks or rear. The persians literally had no hope until a renegade Greek person informed them of a path leading behind the Spartan position. This was lightly defended by other Greek troops (Thebans I think, don't quote me on it though) Who the Persians drove back before smashing the Spartans to pieces by attacking their rear. However the time this took enabled the Greeks to score a major naval victory which secured the seas around Greece and forced the Persians back as they were supplied mostly by sea, so the battle had a great deal of signifigance to it.
However I would add that I'm not sure that the Spartans were a citizen army in the modern sense of the word. It's been my impression that they were the most military of the Greek city states and were probably quite well trained and experienced rather than conscripts as we know the term.
Yes Gustavus Adolphus was Sweedish and the king, though my knowledge of him is strictly limited so I could not confirm or deny the other points.
|
|
terje_the_ma...
Responsible
Supreme Hero
Disciple of Herodotus
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 10:12 AM |
|
|
Speaking of Hoplites and their way of fighting:
Didn't the more lightly armed and armoured Roman Legion just throw their throwing-spears (pilum) at the Hoplite formations, and then get 'behind' the range of the Hoplite spears before chopping them to pieces with their short swords?
____________
"Sometimes I think everyone's just pretending to be brave, and none of us really are. Maybe pretending to be brave is how you get brave, I don't know."
- Grenn, A Storm of Swords.
|
|
Svarog
Honorable
Supreme Hero
statue-loving necrophiliac
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 03:24 PM |
|
|
Quote:
However I would add that I'm not sure that the Spartans were a citizen army in the modern sense of the word. It's been my impression that they were the most military of the Greek city states and were probably quite well trained and experienced rather than conscripts as we know the term.
Yeah, and the difference is that the entire Spartan society rested on the concept of warfare. All free men were trained in the military and they were all required to serve there. They even were required to live in the barracks for certain period and after they turned 60 or so, they would be admitted to the Coucil of Elders. Other, i.e. slaves, did the other non-millitary tasks (farming, art, pottery etc). To conclude, the Spartan society wasn't like any other that we've heard of. So, PH is right, conscripts won't do.
____________
The meek shall inherit the earth, but NOT its mineral rights.
|
|
privatehudson
Responsible
Legendary Hero
The Ultimate Badass
|
|
posted June 11, 2004 04:40 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Speaking of Hoplites and their way of fighting:
Didn't the more lightly armed and armoured Roman Legion just throw their throwing-spears (pilum) at the Hoplite formations, and then get 'behind' the range of the Hoplite spears before chopping them to pieces with their short swords?
Essentially so in a way yes. The Legion and earlier Roman styles of fighting also won out against the Hoplite formation because the Legion could advance over rough ground without falling apart cohesion wise and also because it was easier to manouvere with in battle. In the end flexibility won out over longer reach.
Svarog, thank you for the additional information, it's been some time since I last saw any TV programmes on Sparta and was reluctant to remark in depth on the topic because of that
|
| |
|
|
