History Debate!

[kannin]

agamemnon

[Taun]

@Taun

I dont think we Europeans and Americans understand Asia enough.

-1215 Temujin sacks Bejing

-1644 Manchu sacks Bejing

-1398 Timur sacks Delhi

-1526 Babur sacks Delhi

In each of these attacks there were victims counting in millions. West dont know these death tolls till 20 century. Those were brutal wars full of tactics and strategies.

You can add to that list from wiki

50,000,000–75,000,000 – World War II (1939–1945), (see World War II casualties)[2][3]

50,000,000–70,000,000 - Muslim conquest of India (1000-1525)[4]

30,000,000–60,000,000 – Mongol conquests (1206-1324)[5][6][7][8]

25,000,000 – Qing dynasty conquest of Ming Dynasty (1616–1662)[9]

20,000,000 – Taiping Rebellion (1850–1864)[10]

16,563,868 – World War I/Great War (1914–1918) (see World War I casualties)

13,000,000 - An Lushan Rebellion (755–763)[11]

10,000,000 – Era of Warring States (475 BCE–221 BCE)

Oh I'm not discounting the extents or power of the Mongol Empire... it's just that the topic is Greatest Conqueror... Not Greatest ConquerorS... Alexander (IMO) PERSONALLY led the most expansive conquest... The Mongol Conquests were a succession of leaders/Khans... If you count Generational Conquests, it would have to be the Spanish Empire (IMO)... Alexander basically conquered what he did in a ten year time frame... The Mongol Conquests took from about 1206 until midway through the 14th Century - about 150 years... One Khan or leader did not conquer ALL of that...

Anyway that's my take on the topic - perhaps I misunderstood the criteria...

[kmt_sesh]

Nope. Several of his campaigns were farmed out to his staff while he partied and/or was recovering from battle wounds. Check out Quintus Rufus Curtius, esp. Books VI and VII.

--Jaylemurph

This is true, but all I'm aware of involved minor campaigns that would've had little to no effect on Alexander's overall conquest. The great battles of Granicus, Issus, Tyre, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes saw Alexander out front, leading his men into battle. Truth be told, very few kings in history actually dared to do this. One could add to this list most notable battles in Bactria and of course the march into Egypt. Well, the last one isn't a great example considering by this point, after Granicus, Issus, and Tyre, the Persians were terrified of Alexander and his phalanx and the Persian garrison at Memphis marched out and surrendered with little if any fighting.

[kmt_sesh]

Oh I'm not discounting the extents or power of the Mongol Empire... it's just that the topic is Greatest Conqueror... Not Greatest ConquerorS... Alexander (IMO) PERSONALLY led the most expansive conquest... The Mongol Conquests were a succession of leaders/Khans... If you count Generational Conquests, it would have to be the Spanish Empire (IMO)... Alexander basically conquered what he did in a ten year time frame... The Mongol Conquests took from about 1206 until midway through the 14th Century - about 150 years... One Khan or leader did not conquer ALL of that...

Anyway that's my take on the topic - perhaps I misunderstood the criteria...

A very good point. It's another reason to side with Alexander the Great. That he achieved such conquest at the head of his own army and in the span of a decade, is practically unmatched in human history—which is why so many later Greeks and Romans tried to style themselves as Alexander.

It took the Mongols much longer to achieve their empire, through several generations of leadership. Conversely, however, it must be noted that Alexander's great empire fell apart practically the moment he drew his last breath. While Alexander was responsible for the spread of Hellenism to the entire Middle East and Asia Minor, his generals couldn't keep their act together to preserve that empire. Nevertheless, the kingdoms that rose in the Hellenistic period, headed by Alexander's generals and their descendants, are fascinating all by themselves.

[born2run]

Alexander the Great, mind you history has left us few kings with "the Great" stuck after the respective king's formal name. I think he did much with less than many other armies he and his men faced until his death, I believe at age 32?(+)(-) a year or two and many generals in later armies seemed to hold his accomplishments, in a given time frame, something that has not been done since. tah, that cn be debated but I'll let the history/military types deal with who is smarter or who can quoted various books, titles, authors,in how many different languages, etc.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Oh I'm not discounting the extents or power of the Mongol Empire... it's just that the topic is Greatest Conqueror... Not Greatest ConquerorS... Alexander (IMO) PERSONALLY led the most expansive conquest... The Mongol Conquests were a succession of leaders/Khans... If you count Generational Conquests, it would have to be the Spanish Empire (IMO)... Alexander basically conquered what he did in a ten year time frame... The Mongol Conquests took from about 1206 until midway through the 14th Century - about 150 years... One Khan or leader did not conquer ALL of that...

Anyway that's my take on the topic - perhaps I misunderstood the criteria...

What I have been trying to tell is that conquerer by your view, and possibly others , only capture one tiny part of great commanders.

Which is might be true but I like to look on all tactican and strategists as one "class".

No matter did they attack or defense. Or fight for small area.

I mentioned four attacks which were full of victims and strategies and tactics. Just because doesnt include big land mass it doesnt exclude military masterpieces.

If so I think list of conquerers will miss MANY major figures from history of warfare.

Also many common people put in front tacticans over strategists. Which in my opinion is amateur look on warfare.

I too look on it that way before.

But ofcourse almost all people mentioned here were both, great tacticans and strategists.

First person that comes in my mind is Zhuge Liang aka Crouching Dragon, chacellor of Shu. In China some historians put him before famous Sun Tzu.

He is amazing figure.

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[jaylemurph]

This is true, but all I'm aware of involved minor campaigns that would've had little to no effect on Alexander's overall conquest. The great battles of Granicus, Issus, Tyre, Gaugamela, and Hydaspes saw Alexander out front, leading his men into battle. Truth be told, very few kings in history actually dared to do this. One could add to this list most notable battles in Bactria and of course the march into Egypt. Well, the last one isn't a great example considering by this point, after Granicus, Issus, and Tyre, the Persians were terrified of Alexander and his phalanx and the Persian garrison at Memphis marched out and surrendered with little if any fighting.

I don't particularly want to speak for the poster himself, but he suggested Alexander let /every/ campaign personally, which even you admit above is not true. (I'm not denying, though, the ones he was not present for were relatively minor.)

--Jaylemurph

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Oh I'm not discounting the extents or power of the Mongol Empire... it's just that the topic is Greatest Conqueror... Not Greatest ConquerorS... Alexander (IMO) PERSONALLY led the most expansive conquest... The Mongol Conquests were a succession of leaders/Khans... If you count Generational Conquests, it would have to be the Spanish Empire (IMO)... Alexander basically conquered what he did in a ten year time frame... The Mongol Conquests took from about 1206 until midway through the 14th Century - about 150 years... One Khan or leader did not conquer ALL of that...

Anyway that's my take on the topic - perhaps I misunderstood the criteria...

So now criteria is time frame, leading army in battles and land mass?

By the criteria you mentioned Subutai himself beats Alexander.

Alexander is overrated by Eurocentric people.

Or because spread of Hellenism. Then Ibn Walid is greater then Alexander. He is responsble for spread of Islam. Never loose single battle.

Subutai warpath is way, way greater then Alexander one.

Lets face the facts here. Nothing moved like Mongol army untill time of invention of improved trains.

Sorry but to me its even silly to compare those two.

Imho there far greater tactican and strategist then Alexander.

And spread of Hellenism is his byproduct which he never intended to do.

Same as Caesar. He didnt want to spread civilization. He was on hunt for personal gain, as Alexander. For glory, power, money.

On another hand Mongols were swarm. Hive minded army which allow sometimes that new nest is built when population increased.

Mongol empire was far streched then Alexander.

Borders better protected. Mongols kept causilties law. Their army after one conquest was in moment ready for another one. Alexander army in the end was wounded "gang."

By all numbers Subutai and Temujin leave Alexander behind. At great distance.

Sorry but to me its funny to think they could be compared.

One thing is Holywood. Another thing is science/history.

Subutai fight and won over Europeans, Turks other stepe people, Arabs, Chinese...

And most important his tactic and strategy overpass Alexander.

As I said people who ignored fact that during Han only Roman empire could compare to it.

From the moment Rome collapsed till industrial revolution China was greatest power in world.

Because people dont aware of this fact they create their own views. Objective aproach would took this fact into account.

When Mongols emerged there were several China states. One powerfull then nothing Europe would see in years.

China warfare was far greater then any among settler people before and in that moment.

Yet Mongols and their own ideas overcome this great power. Can provide more info about Mongol invasion of China.

Khwarizmia was great power too. You only need to see Temujin view on it to realize how strong was it.

After Mongols run over they didnt recover till today as some historians argued. Also can provide more info.

Not to mentioned other states in the way.

To realize who were Mongols and not going into mud of China and central Asia if you dont like, but to see it on familar examples, one only need to look Subutai SCOUT expedition on west.

30 000 Mongols deleted, literally, everything what got in their way.

You will probably think Im overexarggarating here because I doenst seems like truth.

But it is true.

Mongols power was that by great leadership small number of soldiers cover great distances.

In almost every battle they were outnumbered. Think about that.

So by choosing one person in particular then Subutai and Temujin were FAR greater by all means then Alexander. Even Ibn Walid. Even Timur.

Even Napoleon.

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Several posters have made vauge and sweeping statements about Slavic Europe being over-run by Golden Horde, and making it seem all of Central and Eastern Europe was under Mongol yoke. A correction as this is simply not true as can be seen in the map I post. The extent of the Golden Horde is in green. What has been taken by the Mongols is almost all what is now modern Ukraine, Southern Russia and Kazakhstan. However, at that time Crimea, the Kuban, the lower Don, the lower Volga, the southern part of the Urals and the area stretching all the way West to Kazan, were not part of Kievan Rus, or even of Russia until centuries later. Crimea, Rostov, Azov and the Kuban not becoming part of Russia until 18th Century. This is a broad brush and there is much more to this of course, but I don't want to be pedantic and way offtop, or to engage in any debate because of modern politics and agendas. This map is the recognised area controlled by the Horde, saying that they made some strike to this place or that would be clutching at straws to make these Mongols seem better than they were. To me it does not matter so much how far a tsunami reaches inland, it is what happens when it looses it's force. Kalka was a disaster, but then there was Kulikovo, and then Kazan, and then Azov and on and on. Invasions of Europe by Mongols and later by Turks was stopped by Slavs and Hungarians. I think they are brushed aside in this debate as of no consequence, a footnote in history, and this is wrong.

There is a name missing from these various lists of "conquerors" Mehmet II "The Conqueror", I find this surprising. And as for generals, which this debate has mostly become about, only one mention of Suvurov. He was one of the greatest generals of all time. His exploits after being betrayed by the Austrians were super human, and this was at the end of his career, let alone all the victories before. One effect of the exploits in the Alps, comparable to Hanibal, was modern Switzerland, where there is a very grand statue to him and the Russian Army.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Big Bad Voodoo]

You see that Im not anti Russian- (Hint: Suvorov) I will add Kutuzov aswell.

Golden Horde comes later.

And Mongols were not stoped by Slavs and Hungarians. Even small Croats defeat them.

Death of Ogdei stop them.

Same as Mamluk Sultanate of Egypt didnt stop Mongols. Death of Mongoke year before stop them. aswell as death of Hulegu five years after. Mamluk stop lieutenant Kitbuga. Hulagu would crushed them. Btw Qutuz and Mamluks were great no question about it.

Same as Samurai didnt stop them. Climate stop them.

Or in better words not understanding and ignoring climate, and life duration and internal conflicts stop Mongol conquest. At this point Mongols were too streched. Only Empire able to surpass them is British Empire in land mass. Although it was not in one piece. And Mongol weakness was shown. Which was sea. Even Koreans and Chinese lead the fleet.

Nevertheless Subutai, Batu, Orda, Kadan...erased Europe armies.

Also what you need to understand that Golden Horde recognize rulership of ultimate Khan. Meaning it was a province, autonomy in the beging and middle of it.

I would say that last legacy of Mongolia was Taj Mahal.

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

And Mongols were not stoped by Slavs and Hungarians. Even small Croats defeat them.

I do not accept this as being all of the truth. Besides, my statement was "Invasions of Europe by Mongols and later by Turks was stopped by Slavs and Hungarians". So, who saved Vienna? perhaps ask this question in Warsaw.....

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I do not accept this as being all of the truth. Besides, my statement was "Invasions of Europe by Mongols and later by Turks was stopped by Slavs and Hungarians". So, who saved Vienna? perhaps ask this question in Warsaw.....

Ottomans were different civilization. Hence they even made war with Mongols which almost destroy Ottoman empire.

Slavs on Balkan with help from Vienna and Hungarians stop Turks.

I know that VERY well. We learn it here from 5th grade prime school till, in most high schools 2nd grade, or 4th grade.

For the first time in history we have organized state only for military purpose. In todays Croatia.

In both cases Croatia was border line. First line.

Ofcourse Europe was saved by Jan III Sobieski. Imo Tolkein took this idea for his LOTR. And Poles fight Turks and Tatars often. But many others European states. Siege of Malta, Battle of Lepanto...

But Mongols were different spicies. They came, crushed european knights and leave. They conquer Hungary. Battle of Mohi/Sajo river...

And again it was "because of Cumans."

When Bela IV run in todays Zagreb, capital of my country, Mongol burn it.

And Bela IV run again.

Mongols have had problems in Dalmatia, part of Croatia, Adriatic coast due terrain. Croats won few battles there. But it wasnt conquest. It was raid,.. scoutings. Sneak a peak...

Death of Khan stop conquest of Europe. There wouldnt be contest at all. Mongols were better army. Only guerilla fight could won them imo. Problem was they themselves were sort of Guerilla fighters...It would be interesting to see and many historians ask that question what would happened if Ogdei didnt died..

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[Big Bad Voodoo]

I said because of Cumans. to explain it.

My history teacher teach us that every event in history have reason, cause and result.

Reasons are often economy, vengeance...

Cause is excuse.

You know...how Roman conquered world on defensive wars...

[jesspy]

Can I say the British Empire or is a person you are after.

If a person then I say Khan then Alexander. I think if Alexander had more men behind him (ahem) he may have been able to do more.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

I don't want to hijack or deliberately go offtop, but I take opportunity for experiment to see level of knowledge. This is not meant as any insult as clearly many here know what they talk about. It is simply to see what those from English speaking countries know of rest of Europe. I ask because the rest of us know about your wars, there is even a large (many thousands of members) groups in Russia who re-enact "Wars of Roses". This may be a surprise I think.....

A list of wars, not battles as it would be too long. Some will be familiar I am sure, but who can say they know even 30% of this list. I myself did not know all these, but more than about 80% I think. And while some of these wars were very minor, some were of huge consequence to all Europe.

In order of date.

Thirteen years war 1454-7

Polish war against Teutonic Order 1519-21

Swedish - Muscovite war 1554-7

First Northern War 1558-83

Nordic Seven Years War 1563-70

Eighty Years War 1568-1648

Swedish - Muscovite War 1590-95

Polish - Swedish War 1600-29

Polish - Muscovite War 1609-19 ("Time of Troubles" after Boris Gudenov. Liberation of Moscow by Dmitry Pozharsky and Kuzma Minin and beginning of Romanov rule.)

Kalmar War 1611-13

Thirty Years War 1618-48

Polish - Ottoman War 1620-21

Smolensk War 1632-34

Swedish - Danish War 1643-45

Thirteen Years war 1654-67

Second Northern War 1655-60

Swedish - Muscovite War 1656-61

Swedish - Danish War 1657-58

Swedish - Danish War 1658-60

War of Devolution 1667-68

Scanian War 1674-79

Holy League - Ottoman War 1683-99

Nine Years War 1688-97

Great Northern War 1700-21 (Battle of Poltava)

Ottoman - Russian War 1711

If nothing else, this list shows how power rises and falls. Sweden, so great at the times, now known for popular cheap furniture. But to go back to topic, I did not see name of Gustavus Adolphus mentioned.

[Tata Rompe Pecho]

Nzambi(or in my opinion, the real Jesus) is the best conquerer there ever was.

[DeWitz]

What I find fascinating about this thread is the emphasis posters are placing on particular historical and cultural connections and prejudices (sometimes their own) relating to their choice of "best" conqueror. The minutiae of ancient and medieval battles, the nuances of minority ethnic group contributions (Magyars; Croats), the speculation about tactics and weapons systems, the shifting sands of the criteria for "best" and the umbrage taken when an ethnic or national group is perceived to have been to be slighted by some comment.

Frankly, I don't remember the criteria, if they were ever laid out. My first response to the "conqueror of all time" originally was "ignorance;" another poster added "fear" to that. I concur. I could be maudlin and suggest "Jesus" (not the Christian Church) who conquered most parts of the world with his message of love and mercy; or Mohammed/Mahomet who conquered by sword and Qu'ran. How about Joseph Lister who conquered germs by establishing modern antisepsis, thus saving millions (people and dollars)? Or the other disease conquerors who helped eradicate pandemic disease through prophylaxis, inoculation or environmental changes (i.e., draining malarial swamps)? An argument can be made that such scientific progress (enlightened science being close to the opposite of what I called "ignorance") is also a mighty conqueror.(despite recent setbacks like anitbiotic- resistant bacteria and questions of vaccine side effects).

I enjoy military history as much as the next guy or gal (my hobby is modern "obscure war," such as the Panay Incident, the Spanish Civil War, Nanking, Kalkin-Gol/Nomonhan, the Winter War, the coup in Chile, the Sandinista Revolution, Georgia 2005). As a result of working with refugees (WW II era onward), I am also painfully aware of the human wreckage wrought by war, so I never romanticize it.

Not meaning to be a buzzkill, I simply plead that in this continuous international militarization of humanity we remember how "do-gooders" can be conquerors, too.

[DeWitz]

Nzambi(or in my opinion, the real Jesus) is the best conquerer there ever was.

xFelix, you beat--beat me to the punch--on Jesus/Yeshua/Nzambi. Thanks!

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Some idle speculation about that which never was, but had Japanese had European type warships during Sengoku period, and the will, we would certainly add to any list of conquerors the names Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu. I believe the Europeans who witnessed the battles wrote reports home of their "shock and awe" at how clever and devasting the Japanese were at waging war, and how lucky that they were so far away and had no interests outside Japan, the excursion to Korea besides. A great "what if", if before the technology gap widened, particulary in cannon and warships, a Japanese army had met face to face with a European army at that time......

And to add, that though as this is English language forum, then the majority here will be native English speakers, and a majority of those Americans. It would add to debates such as this if a Mongol, Chinese or Japanese could contribute, otherwise it is mostly Europeans (by nationality or heritage) talking amongst themselves and there will, despite some national differences, be a certain inbuilt bias.

Edited June 28, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri

[Big Bad Voodoo]

But to go back to topic, I did not see name of Gustavus Adolphus mentioned.

Read post 38.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

What I find fascinating about this thread is the emphasis posters are placing on particular historical and cultural connections and prejudices (sometimes their own) relating to their choice of "best" conqueror. The minutiae of ancient and medieval battles, the nuances of minority ethnic group contributions (Magyars; Croats), the speculation about tactics and weapons systems, the shifting sands of the criteria for "best" and the umbrage taken when an ethnic or national group is perceived to have been to be slighted by some comment.

This is called forum if you didnt noticed where people discuss. Not just mention one name and disapear for eternity.

So now I must ignores my history because Im Croat? Get real. I should agree on Pasheri because mentioning smaller countries is forbidden?

Please I do not have complex for being small country. Im proud of my country history. We are here from 7 century. Happy to be alive. Something like Israel.

Pasheri mentioned Slavs and Hungarians stoping Mongols.

I respond that Mongols burnt Hungary and half of Croatia and on other half of Croatia they didnt go well and why.

To proove point that they didnt stop Mongols.

Trust me if I wanted to wrote about it I will fullfill 3 pages minimum.

You having problems with Hungarians and Croats perhaps?

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Oda Nobunaga, Toyotomi Hideyoshi and Tokugawa Ieyasu.

And many others. I like Hanzo.

Edited June 28, 2013 by the L

[DeWitz]

Read post 38.

Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden's King and the Lion of the North, was their leader in the Northern War and the first battle of the 30 Years War. He was a warrior and church reformer, comparable to a combo platter of England's Henry IV and Henry VIII.

My only comment about Tut-pasheri's list is that, according to the way most Westerners are educated, the Thirty Year' War includes 2 or 3 of the other conflicts, all subsumed under one heading.

If not for the magic of that amazing device called a 'DVD' I might never have discovered the intricacies of 17th century Russian military history, with the end of the Gudenov family and the crisis of the Tsar's succession. I'm not even certain how accurate the history of the film "1612" actually is. We're fortunate to have Tut's perspective on these things from an east-of-the-Vistula/Wisla point of view.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

And many others. I like Hanzo.

To me the most interesting is Takeda Shingen, the incident with the war fan for instance. Also for defeating Oda Nobunaga and Tokugawa Ieyasu combined.

[Tutankhaten-pasheri]

Gustavus Adolphus, Sweden's King and the Lion of the North, was their leader in the Northern War and the first battle of the 30 Years War. He was a warrior and church reformer, comparable to a combo platter of England's Henry IV and Henry VIII.

My only comment about Tut-pasheri's list is that, according to the way most Westerners are educated, the Thirty Year' War includes 2 or 3 of the other conflicts, all subsumed under one heading.

If not for the magic of that amazing device called a 'DVD' I might never have discovered the intricacies of 17th century Russian military history, with the end of the Gudenov family and the crisis of the Tsar's succession. I'm not even certain how accurate the history of the film "1612" actually is. We're fortunate to have Tut's perspective on these things from an east-of-the-Vistula/Wisla point of view.

1612 was essentially a fantasy film. It had a unicorn!, well, yes, a dream sequence, but..... And it turned reality on it's head with Poles trying to take Moscow and failing, when reality is that they did take Moscow, and then were ejected by Minin and Pozharsky, who are hardly mentioned in the film, but some fantasy Spaniards are. Poles hate this film, but really it is all nonsense. Entertaining fantasy, but certainly not history. There was a better film, using the same props, about Taras Bulba, also hated by Poles....

Edited June 28, 2013 by Tutankhaten-pasheri