Greatest comanders of the ancient and medieval world

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Eh, I'll probably go with Saladin.

He was the first and maybe the only man that was able to unite the racially and religiously disparate muslim groups under his leadership. One of the main reasons that the Crusaders had been succesful before Saladin was that local muslim rulers fought each other.

He also tended to be merciful and chivalrous in victory; So much that so he was admired and respected by both christians and muslims.

Saladin also displayed chivalry at times which put european knights to shame. At a time when the Crusaders slaughtered Muslims with abandon, Saladin allowed the Christian residents of Jerusalem to be ransomed for a small fee. Those who were unable to pay the fee were released free of charge.

Bit late to the punch but oh well:

I'm a saladin fanboy myself but he was kinda garbage at everything military. He crapped himself at hattin, arsuf and acre, leading this paralysed inaction that seems to characterise him. And he was far from chivalrous for a lot of his life. His armies disintegrated at the drop of a hat (even more than usual) and he insisted on making his brain-dead relatives high-ranking generals. He stood on the shoulders of giants. Like that prick zengi.

Richard the Lionheart on the other hand was an uncommonly capable general given what he was up against, and the fact that he wasn't a rags to riches born leader like the belligerents of the crusaders states before him. He managed to exploit all of Saladin's weaknesses despite never having fought hit 'n' run turkic armies before, and kept his disparate army together when the other two kings (Philip and Barbarossa) left (to france and heaven respectively). And he was the first to recognize that egypt was a better target than Jerusalem, which set the precedent for the other (admittedly unsuccessful) crusades.

As much as i like Saladin, richard whooped his ass.

 

[Das Longbowman]

Eh, I'll probably go with Saladin.

He was the first and maybe the only man that was able to unite the racially and religiously disparate muslim groups under his leadership. One of the main reasons that the Crusaders had been succesful before Saladin was that local muslim rulers fought each other.

He also tended to be merciful and chivalrous in victory; So much that so he was admired and respected by both christians and muslims.

Saladin also displayed chivalry at times which put european knights to shame. At a time when the Crusaders slaughtered Muslims with abandon, Saladin allowed the Christian residents of Jerusalem to be ransomed for a small fee. Those who were unable to pay the fee were released free of charge.

Bit late to the punch but oh well:

I'm a saladin fanboy myself but he was kinda garbage at everything military. He crapped himself at hattin, arsuf and acre, leading this paralysed inaction that seems to characterise him. And he was far from chivalrous for a lot of his life. His armies disintegrated at the drop of a hat (even more than usual) and he insisted on making his brain-dead relatives high-ranking generals. He stood on the shoulders of giants. Like that prick zengi.

Richard the Lionheart on the other hand was an uncommonly capable general given what he was up against, and the fact that he wasn't a rags to riches born leader like the belligerents of the crusaders states before him. He managed to exploit all of Saladin's weaknesses despite never having fought hit 'n' run turkic armies before, and kept his disparate army together when the other two kings (Philip and Barbarossa) left (to france and heaven respectively). And he was the first to recognize that egypt was a better target than Jerusalem, which set the precedent for the other (admittedly unsuccessful) crusades.

As much as i like Saladin, richard whooped his ass.

I can't agree with you on almost every aspect, but that's your opinion and I respect that .

About your statement:

he was kinda garbage at everything military

I must admit he is not the best military leader, he did sucked, a bit. But he definitely wasn't the worst (or garbage at everything military, as you've stated). Although he did crapped himself in Arsuf and Acre, atleast he was able to get the main job done, and that was to retake Jerusalem. If the whole Crusade was intended to capture the holy city, then it surely have failed. Why?, Because Saladin recaptured it. And that's the whole point, IMHO, offcourse .

Moving on to your next statement:

And he was far from chivalrous for a lot of his life

Well yes, but did he hated his own people?, no. Did he massacred the population of the cities he recaptured, no. That's all I can say about that, I think.

As much as i like Saladin, richard whooped his ass.

Im not even replying to this, nope ...

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Saladin's victory was a cheap one, and organised partially on Richard's terms. If Saladin was more of a decisive commander, he could have finished off the kingdom of Jerusalem after hattin, or at the very least bought acre tp a speedy resolution by sandwiching the crusader army, but he didn't (perhaps he was getting old - he did a lot of daring stuff in his youth - bit capitalising on a surrounded army isn't exactly daring).

Which brings me to my next point:

Moving on to your next statement:

And he was far from chivalrous for a lot of his life

Well yes, but did he hated his own people?, no. Did he massacred the population of the cities he recaptured, no. That's all I can say about that, I think.

The reason he went all-out on the crusader states (a terrible target; conquering the castle-infested levant was a drain on resources and Jerusalem was a strategically worthless city) was to silence or at least calm the critics of his early campaigns in egypt and syria. He assassinated young rulers and regents all over the shop, burned villages in sudan to the ground, and executed prisoners of war many times outside the one occasion during the thrid crusade.
As a result he was viewed as a violent expansionist, spreading war between muslim states for his own personal gain. So to avoid being assasinated himself, he painted the crusader states as a deadly common enemy (they weren't), and focussed his strength on recapturing Jerusalem. The execution was pretty sloppy and the strain this caused, both on himself and the unity of his realm, probably led to the abrupt end of the ayyubid empire.

 

[Das Longbowman]

If Saladin was more of a decisive commander, he could have finished off the kingdom of Jerusalem after hattin, or at the very least bought acre tp a speedy resolution by sandwiching the crusader army

Hmm...I thought Richard organised a peace treaty with him, in the end of the third crusade, which is what I have been referring to in my replies . Here's a link.

This though:

He assassinated young rulers and regents all over the shop, burned villages in sudan to the ground, and executed prisoners of war many times outside the one occasion during the thrid crusade.

Wow, is this true? I've never heard of Saladin committing any of those before, a reference, perhaps ?

 

[Captured Joe]

Saladin also got his ass whooped by a crippled leper with a handful of Templars and Reynald de Chatillon at Montsigard.

 

[Das Longbowman]

Saladin also got his ass whooped by a crippled leper with a handful of Templars and Reynald de Chatillon at Montsigard.

Sadly Reynald got his FREAKING HEAD chopped off the block, who got the last laugh then huh? HUH ??

 

[Captured Joe]

Hollywood got.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Raynald of chatillon was such a moron that simply being beaten by an army he was part of is a pretty bad thing to put on your résumé. It's like losing to the italians.

 

[Captured Joe]

I don't get what you're saying...

 

[Alfredthegreat]

For me the khan would win against alexander

 

[Rhodokguard]

Genghis Khan all the way, he had a fantastic leadership.

 

[Almalexia]

Well considering Alexander's main tactic was using the phalanx as the anvil, pinning down the majority of the enemy army while the cavalry acted as the hammer (a rough summary), despite his success against the Scythians, it would be near useless against the Mongol hordes.

 

[Queue]

This poll doesn't seem fair. They were 1500 years apart with different technologies and tactics. You have to look at the victories they achieved against foes similar to themselves.

 

[rapier17]

The poll is a little unfair. There are nigh on 1500 years between the two, but even so I will go with Alexander each time every time.

 

[Antonis]

Yeah, the poll does have some problems, mainly due to the 15 centuries that seperate these leaders. Of course, you could compare the leaders, as individuals and military leaders, but not their armies, for obvious reasons. Now, if my memory serves me, Alexander's army did venture into the steppes and was pit against horse-riders. That could give us a basis if we wanted to really compare their armies, but still, the fact that Genghis Khan(or Chingis/Chinghis Khan or Temujin, whicever you prefer) was born 1500 years later and utilised far better means in his army cannot be overlooked. With that said, I believe that the Khan could easily beat Alexander, even with the same armies. Yes, Alexander was probably more intelligent and had an education in military affairs(for his era, at least), but he was more flawed personality wise. It wasn't ambition, but the will to show and fullfill it as quickly as possibly, mainly. He was basically a spoiled genius. With all the harships of his campaigns, he was still a prince and King, while Genghis was a warrior and a very cunning and intelligent man. We don't know what would have happened if Alexander grew older, but I've read that he was being more paranoid and obnoxious, extravagant(maybe these words are wrong, sorry) by the years.

Later, I may do some research on details of their armies, tactis etc. and write a full review on my take of that imaginary battle, as it is quite fascinating as a topic.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

The fact that genghis khan managed to build a system of warfare and tribal organisation completely from scratch puts him ahead of Alexander as far as leadership goes. And the fact that his army and government was better organised than anything in the world, sedentary or otherwise, up until the early modern period.

The difference in technology between the two is sort of a moot point when discussing steppe nomads, because their arms and armour hardly changed (recurve bows, ponies, lamellar armour), and would certainly have been acquirable for nomads in Alexander's day (at least those living in transition zones between steppe and sown).

 

[Kharille]

Genghis Khan...  Spent a life of suffering.  His father was poisoned and he had to be the head of his family at the age of 12.  His wife was abducted and he was never sure of the parentage of his eldest son.  Life was harsh when he was rebuilding his tribe.

I love the stories of Genghis Khan.  He managed to defeat a good friend after much effort, and asked him to join him.  His friend said there could only be one sun in the sky.  So to prevent spillage of noble blood they wrapped his friend up and kicked him to death.

I'm not so impressed by Alexanders life.  I think he was educated by socrates or aristotle if I recall correctly.  Big deal.

 

[Antonis]

I think he was educated by socrates or aristotle if I recall correctly.  Big deal.

Seriously? I am not the one to say that Alexander was the best, but it was certainly one of the most accomplished men of History. And it was Aristotle, Socrates was long dead by then.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

It was Aristotle. Even so it's reckoned that genghis khan had some kind of (semi-formal) education in his youth. It's still a theory but it wasn't uncommon for the sons of noble nomads to go and make a living in settled areas. Just ask the mediaeval iranians.

 

[Almalexia]

It was Aristotle. Even so it's reckoned that genghis khan had some kind of (semi-formal) education in his youth. It's still a theory but it wasn't uncommon for the sons of noble nomads to go and make a living in settled areas. Just ask the mediaeval iranians.

Well if that was the case he would have had first-hand witness to the Confucian meritocratic system established in the Song and to a lesser extent Jin dynasties to the South, which would have certainly influenced his own meritocratic system, though it was a military rather than a civil pursuit in his case, thus saying it was built entirely by scratch by himself seems inaccurate.