Greatest Warrior and Greatest Military Genius before 1900

[Venusian Broon]

1.Wellington.
2.Elizabeth I.
3.Saladin. .

Completely agree with Wellington, I get the sense that he was a soldiers general (a bit like Monty), whereas Napolean used his men a bit like a computer game (oh do I get 80k every new turn yes?)

Saladin as well, good choice. Has to be remembered that he fought a number of muslim powers to get to his position of eminence.

But, Lizzy didn't really fight, despite her king-like belly. She was a fantastic queen to calm England down at the time - Definitely a great Queen. Perhaps not a Military Genius.

 

[thaddeus6th]

Wellington - I remember reading about the Battle of Assaye in the Sharpe books. Wasn't that a force of 8,000 beating something mad like 60,000? Reminds me a little of Tigranocerta (although that was even more crazy and featured the Romans at the height of their mental "Attack everything!" prowess).

I know little of Saladin but the little bits and pieces I've heard suggest he was indeed a fine fellow as well as a very capable military commander.

I think you're harsh on Hannibal. Rome was pathologically patriotic at that point in history, and Hannibal lacked the siege engines, enough defections from Italian cities and enough support from home to press his advantage after Cannae.

 

[svalbard]

Wellington - I remember reading about the Battle of Assaye in the Sharpe books. Wasn't that a force of 8,000 beating something mad like 60,000? Reminds me a little of Tigranocerta (although that was even more crazy and featured the Romans at the height of their mental "Attack everything!" prowess).
.

The Roman general that day, Lucius Lucullus, was another undeafeted leader and a man who rode the coat-tails of Sulla, prospering as a result. The fellows before Caesar just do not get enough credit for what they achieved. Then Caesar was a great man for the PR machine, writing his own(very biased) Commentaries, and of course Shakespeare wrote a play about him...

 

[Bowler1]

PM - Elizabeth I - she was never on the battlefield so I don't think she should count. However she does score high on cunning and planning.

Wellington was a defensive general and not a general for attacking. The thin red line as used in Waterloo could only have ever been a static defence. The French column was a good attacking formation at the time against the musket and useful for keeping the men in formation while they marched. Using strategies that had been successful in the past is hardly a flaw for Boney, anyway, he was old by then and passed it. He was also on his final bonus life for that battle, 70k against 100k in the allied army, with poor battlefield position and the clock ticking in case the Prussians turned up. Wellington never really faced Boney in Portugal, he was off living the high life then so not a point against my Frenchy. The battle of Assaye is just beating up natives, behave! Wellington gets more credit than he deserves just because he beat Napoleon after Russia.

Saladin, I don’t know all that much about him but it was a religious war so he had a uniting factor just waiting in the wings. The third European crusade was a bit of a shambles so did he really win or was this fruit ripe for the picking? Please enlighten me PM, an interesting choice.

Svalbard, there may be reason why Caesar stands out alone in history. Today a modern general will tell you controlling the media is key, that would put Caesar 2,000 years ahead of the curve then!

Hannibal, noooo. War is not baseball, the Romans thought him that, now he was inflexible!

You kiddies are hard work (and fun), I can't sneek much passed you lot!

 

[svalbard]

There is a story told by Livy, it maybe apocraphyl(sp). The tale goes that Scipio Africanus met Hannibal in the East years after the Battle of Zama. The two got to talking and Scipio asked Hannibal who would be his three top generals. Hannibal's list was 1. Alexander the Great 2. Pyhrus(sp) of Epirus 3. Himself(Hannibal). Of course Scipio asked him why he did not put himself first. To which Hannibal replied...I forget the rest Something about Scipio defeating him etc.

 

[thaddeus6th]

That happened, allegedly, before Zama.

I forget the precise line, but Hannibal did list those you wrote but added that if Scipio won the battle he should be in first place.

It's quite a cunning double-edged compliment to both of them.

Not many sayings of Hannibal have survived, sadly (unlike Alexander). A slightly wacky one is that, apparently, before Cannae (I think) he took a small retinue to assess the strength of the Roman army. His lieutenants were all taken aback by the enormity of the Roman force, including one man called Gisgo.

Hannibal (more or less) turned to Gisgo and said, "Do not worry, for amongst all those thousands of men they have not a single Gisgo."

Not a classic but it broke the tension and the lieutenants laughed, and when they returned to the Punic army everyone saw Hannibal and his commanders laughing and cheerful which did no end of good for morale.

Edited extra bit: hmm. In retrospect, I think you were right on timing. Hannibal's reply was actually that if he had beaten Scipio then he would have put himself as number one.

Silly me.

 

[Connavar]

I would rank Ghengis Khan highest in this. He didnt have a father who made an empire like Philip of Macedon, Ceasar had the might of Rome behind him.

To have biggest empire there has been on military prowess,leadership is something. To conquer so much as nomadic people is something. You cant say he leaned on his generals, every great military leader has good people under him.

Alexander,Ceasar and co are overhyped because its a western part of the world we live. The Mongols are horrible barbarians and not idealized heroes like Alexander and Ceasar.

I would rank Napoelon and Salladin second. Napoleon lost but he controlled most of Europe, had his way in 20 years of war. Saladin conquered his enemies, the crusaders not because it was the latter crusades only.

Interesting enough in East Africa,Northern Africa the part of the world im from he is the great military leader,warrior. He is eastern Alexander. Doesnt matter his battles was not to conquered half the world.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I think that's unfair on Alexander.

He was fortunate to inherit a great army and strong kingdom but had to immediately (at 19) reassert the Hellenistic hegemony, and then went on to smash Persia and deal some Indians a bloody nose too. He never lost a battle, won a number of enormous battles and cracked some very tough nuts with siegecraft.

 

[Bowler1]

WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.

 

[Connavar]

I think that's unfair on Alexander.

He was fortunate to inherit a great army and strong kingdom but had to immediately (at 19) reassert the Hellenistic hegemony, and then went on to smash Persia and deal some Indians a bloody nose too. He never lost a battle, won a number of enormous battles and cracked some very tough nuts with siegecraft.

Hey no no i respect Alexander alot for his young age when he dominated but he did have a great army,strong kingdom before him. Historians mention he killed Parmenion because he built the army with Philip and had too much power. People like that are forgotten for the young hero.

I just meant in west people tend to overdo because he is part of Greek history. Like the Romans idolized him so do people today. Most people this part of the world think Ghengis Khan was the guy who couldnt conquer whole of China and didnt do anything else than rape half of the women in Asia and cut of peoples heads.

 

[Connavar]

WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.

He was no lord, he didnt enherit his position like military leaders like Ceasar or Wellington.

You got respect no matter what you think the fact he went lowly officer,soldier to self made Emperor who warred on whole of Europe on his military prowess. The fact he lost some battles,war in the end like most historical military leaders in this thread doesnt belittle his record.

 

[Venusian Broon]

I would rank Ghengis Khan highest in this. He didnt have a father who made an empire like Philip of Macedon, Ceasar had the might of Rome behind him.

To have biggest empire there has been on military prowess,leadership is something. To conquer so much as nomadic people is something. You cant say he leaned on his generals, every great military leader has good people under him.

Of course the historical view of Ghengis Khan is also highly romantised - by his own offspring and to say that it was just a bunch of dirty barbarians licked into shape by a superhuman Ghengis is also wrong.

Periodically, since the people of the steppe learnt to become wonderful horsemen and to master the bow, there have been times when vast hordes poured west ward looking for fame, fortune, land, riches. We of course don't have who inspired the first vast migrations (but we know that they took place - look at ancient Indian history and the hordes - the White Hun I think they have been called, in from the North...)

The Mongolians/steppe nomads being a war-like race where only usually held back when they fought amongst themselves (luckily for the rest of us, that happened a lot.) So the prize for a warlord that could unite such people was a ready made, highly experienced, versatile and huge army. (In fact by uniting the peoples you basically had to go off and campaign) The foundations of the Mongol empire had been built as well - it just needed the right man to take control of it.

Now to be fair, I would say that Alex/Caeser did have it a bit easier - but's it's a bit closer between these and the Khan than 'Ghengis started with nothing' suggests. All exploited the work and foundations of those before them.

Alexander apparently had the balls to led from the front in all his battles, which puts him ahead in the 'Greatest Warrior' stakes bit of this thread, for me.

 

[Foxbat]

To be frank, I don't think this is a question that can be answered. Almost every military 'genius' has a flaw in their armoury.

For example, Hannibal's tactics at Cannae were superb but his overall strategy of basically wandering around Italy was severely flawed (and was also severly hampered by lack of supply and replacements).

Robert E. Lee was excellent on the defensive but things started to fall apart for him when he tried to take the offensive (Gettysburg and the ill-fated Pickett's Charge). I'm sure there are many other examples of flawed genius.

Perhaps we should be asking who was the best strategist and who was the best tactician?

 

[Snowdog]

I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.

Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.

Brilliant shout Snowdog, he'd slipped my mind completely.

As for the Warrior/Miltary Genius thing, yes by combining the two it's almost handing it to Alexander - as the Classical ideal of a hero was basically outlined in the Iliad and these myths were really the Greek and Roman world's primer on how to behave and act as warrior, general and king.

Maybe we should start a new thread and ask, as Foxbat has suggested, who was the best strategist, best tactician and who managed to combine these two the best??

 

[svalbard]

I haven't read all this thread, but my vote would go to Belisarius. Almost all his victories were against odds, often with pathetic forces, jealous and disobedient subordinates and a distrustful emperor who starved him of the resources to accomplish his objectives, which, despite all, he usually managed.

Of course 'warrior' and 'military genius' are two different things. Neither Wellington nor Napoleon were warriors in the sense that they conducted their battles from the rear, though they were personally courageous. Napoleon was certainly a military genius, but he did make mistakes, something Wellington rarely did.

Alexander might come closest to a combined 'great', though I'd still rate Belisarius higher in the military genius category.

I was discussing this thread with a friend of mine last night and he also went for Belisarius for pretty much the reasons you mention. To my mind it was the last flourishing of the 'Roman' Empire. The Byzantine way of rule nearly always played against them building upon their gains and it is quite amazing that they lasted as long as they did.

 

[svalbard]

WooHoo, someone else that supports Napoelon.

Keep on beating that drum...

 

[thaddeus6th]

He was no match for a British footwear designer

 

[Connavar]

The Mongolians/steppe nomads being a war-like race where only usually held back when they fought amongst themselves (luckily for the rest of us, that happened a lot.) So the prize for a warlord that could unite such people was a ready made, highly experienced, versatile and huge army. (In fact by uniting the peoples you basically had to go off and campaign) The foundations of the Mongol empire had been built as well - it just needed the right man to take control of it.

Now to be fair, I would say that Alex/Caeser did have it a bit easier - but's it's a bit closer between these and the Khan than 'Ghengis started with nothing' suggests. All exploited the work and foundations of those before them.

You are making it sound like the Mongols was a big empire before Ghengis. Like were like the Greeks,Romans who controlled their world when they ruled.

The part i i highlighted you answered for me why Ghengis Khan than is impressive than he is given credit for in this part of the world. He had built by being the right man to lead. They fell to pieces after him other than Timur,few other powerful Mongol leaders.

Nobody stars with nothing to become a conquerer of big part of the world but he started with less than the ones we compare to him in this thread.

Not like i admire a conquerer who is a mass murderer basicly but you have to give credit. Plus the mongols in his time built military system,officer system that is still exist military today. Like Philip and Parmenion built phalanx based battle system that was unmatched for centuries until the Romans took the Greeks in battles.

 

[thaddeus6th]

I don't think you can directly compare the Macedonian army of the 4th century BC with the related armies (such as those of Pyrrhus) that the Romans faced later, and especially not the Greek/Macedonian forces the Romans encountered when they conquered Greece and Macedon.