Greatest comanders of the ancient and medieval world

[Kharille]

Hm...  I think Alexander was lucky he inherited one of the most skilled infantry in the ancient world. 

Oh and I think some of the other stories are fun.  Genghis Khan found some really hot chick and had to make up excuses to explain to Borta why he was taking his time marching back.

I've heard one of the secrets of Napoleans success was that Europe was fragmented into maybe 200 small states.  Germany used to be composed of maybe 60 of them if I remember correctly.  As long as you have good control over a large state you can pick your battles and eat up smaller countries.  I suppose its similar for all great commanders.

 

[Antonis]

I believe that's pretty much the origin of "Divide and Conquer" phrase. Apart from Napoleon, followers of that maxim was Julius Caesar and Philip II of Macedon.

 

[rapier17]

Big deal.

I think you'll find it is.


Part 2
Part 3

 

[Antonis]

Thanks for that, very interesting and haven't seen it before.

 

[Kharille]

Do I have to watch all 3 vids?  Its not very interesting.  Are we looking at Alexander or the bugger for the bottle?

 

[rapier17]

It's up to you but I thought possibly educating yourself about one of the most important philosophers who lived in the Ancient World, and whose works heavily influenced thinking for over 2,000 years, might broaden ones horizons and grant you an appreciation for how "big a deal" it was for Alexander to be taught by Aristotle. I linked the Mark Steel lecture as they tend to be entertaining and funny, as well as being rather informative. As I said, it's up to you.

 

[Antonis]

Oh my, that burned on so many levels. 

Seriously, this was among the most interesting lectures I've seen and heared. That guy, while clearly has knowledge over the subject, has a way of making it seem interesting. We're talking about philosophy here, so it's not an easy thing. As I said previously, thanks Rapier, one of the best half-hours I had in a while.

 

[gtabigfan34]

Genghis Khan or Alexander? Idk. Both them are strong.Well,Alexander had a army of Infanrty,Phalanxes,Cavalry and some missile units,but The Khan had Mounted Missile Units,Cavalry and some infantry.Phalanxes move slowly and will take heavy casualties by the mongolian horse archers. If alexander try to chase the horse archers they probably would skirmish and as i know mongolian horses are more quickly than the european one.I thing the mongols will win the battle. But that doesnt means that alexander the great is weak 

 

[Kharille]

Ok, ok, I'll save the links...  I've got the wiki link for aristotle, amongst so many of the greek philosophers and all.  Need to put it on next time I'm browsing the wiki on mount & blade which is infinitely more interesting... 


Truth is, its like bronze age vs iron age.  Now if they were in the same age...

Did they have stirrups in 14th century in Mongolia?

 

[matmohair1]

Did they have stirrups in 14th century in Mongolia?

everyone had them by then!

 

[Antonis]

Europe was first introduced to stirrups in the 8th century wholy, I think.

 

[Kharille]

Hah!  Now that is where you're wrong!  Those aztecs and south americans didn't have em!

Watched all 3 vids.  Ok, so its about the bugger for the bottle.  But somehow I don't see the point.  So how does that make alex so great?  I figure he just inherited a great panzer attack force and could steam roller over any other bronze age wildman army.  Of course the difference in technologies makes a vast difference, iron armour, iron arrowheads, stirrups, composite bows...  I think Genghis would have to develop a whole new tactic vs phalanxes, like well placed siege engines and bronze age anti armour methods if he was in the same age.  Maybe he could just wait for alex to expire in his 30's....

 

[Antonis]

Hah!  Now that is where you're wrong! Those aztecs and south americans didn't have em!

Europe was first introduced to stirrups in the 8th century wholy, I think.

I said Europe. If memory serves, the Americas were unused to horses, in general, until they knew them by the European "explorers".

Also, yes you are right and Alexander did inherit a very good army. But Persians, even in their decline were no "wildmen", far from that. And again, you are correct, the time gap is what really makes the difference.

 

[Almalexia]

as i know mongolian horses are more quickly than the european one.I thing the mongols will win the battle. But that doesnt means that alexander the great is weak 

Well, Alexander's cavalry rode atop Nisean horses if I recall, which were amongst, if not the, finest horses ever bred. Truly legendary steeds.

 

[rapier17]

But somehow I don't see the point.  So how does that make alex so great?

It doesn't, it was your dismissal of Aristotle & that Aristotle having taught a young Alexander was not really a 'big deal'. One of the greatest thinkers the world has ever seen taught one of the greatest, if not the greatest general the world has ever seen. That was my point - two of the greatest people in history meeting, both had a profound effect on the world that has lasted through the ages.

Seriously, this was among the most interesting lectures I've seen and heared. That guy, while clearly has knowledge over the subject, has a way of making it seem interesting. We're talking about philosophy here, so it's not an easy thing. As I said previously, thanks Rapier, one of the best half-hours I had in a while.

I'm glad you enjoyed - all of his lectures are thoroughly entertaining & I think most, if not all, are on youtube. Marvellous fellow, Mark Steel - saw him perform stand up comedy once, best 'gig' I've ever been to (and that includes seeing Mark Thomas earlier this year who is incredible when performing live).

 

[nikosierra125]

I have to say Ghengis Khan, While I love Alexander, it just seems that what Ghengis Khan accomplished, from such a small beginning to beating the crap out of china and sending the whole world into terrified panic just beats Alexander's accomplishments by a tiny bit, but maybe that is just me preferring the underdog, and while Alexander was an underdog Temujin was a double underdog and his story seems unbelievable most of the time.

In a way they both inherited the army, Alexanders army was the brain child of Philip and Temujin's army was the product of a harsh environment and cultural emphasis on a man being able to ride and shoot, the more I think about it the more they have in common, they were both the backward cousins of the region, Greeks looked down on macedonians, as did the chinese on the mongols, oh and Alexanders early campaigns in northern Macedon always seemed similar to Temujiin's wars in the north against tatars before unifying the mongols, that is where they both learnt the trade and became men (those stories always interest me more than the later ones actually)


Also going back to the crusade topic earlier, Richard the Lion heart was huge into chivalry, he was brought up hearing stories of honourable deeds and how a knight should behave, apprently his mother sort of brainwashed him into this thought pattern, and out of all the crusaders he was actually in it for the glory, not the gold, there was meant to be prisoner exchanges but after late payments by saladin an order was set to execute prisoners, and the muslims responded in kind and as we all know once this happens it quickly descends into an endless cycle.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

And out of all the crusaders he was actually in it for the glory, not the gold.

This is a sort of arab nationalist myth that appeared in the 20th century. Going on crusade was really expensive and if you were influential, you were expected to bankroll an entourage, be that soldiers or other pilgrims. And there wasn't much money to be made in the levant to begin with, given that the area had been the "meh" zone between egypt and northern Syria Iraq for 400+ years. There was a steady stream of people going on crusade but whenever the pope did a big drive (1st crusade, 2nd etc), young men were practically peer pressured into going, especially in france - I recall something about throwing handkerchiefs at their houses. Later on there were bits of propaganda written that tried to get merchants to move over there.

Richard the Lionheart was exactly what the crusader states needed at that point: an experienced and pragmatic siege expert (even if the states themselves didn't give a crap about Jerusalem). His breaking of the siege of acre was an amazing feat, and one of the most complex city assaults of the middle ages.
If everyone else in his army was an idealist who wanted to march straight on Jerusalem (dumb idea as the city was almost indefensible), richard was there with very few pretences. Like saladin, a lot of his perceived piousness is historical post-editing.

 

[Antonis]

Fact: Richard the Lioheart was gay. Seriously, he was gayier than Elton John combined with Ellen DeGeneres.

Spoiler

Sorry about the mini spam, I couldn't resist.

But yeah, Jacob is right. Richard Plantagenet was pretty much the Churchill of his era for England.

 

[Captured Joe]

Well, Alexander's cavalry rode atop Nisean horses if I recall, which were amongst, if not the, finest horses ever bred. Truly legendary steeds.

What about the horses of the Parthian nobles? They were said to be huge, bigger than any horses the Romans had ever seen.

 

[Kentucky 『 ＨＥＩＧＵＩ 』 James]

Fact: Richard the Lioheart was gay. Seriously, he was gayier than Elton John combined with Ellen DeGeneres.

He supposedly slept in the same bed as the French king once. Way to be judgemental antonis, i mean what kind of person hasn't slept with a monarch these days?

But yeah, Jacob is right. Richard Plantagenet was pretty much the Churchill of his era for The Kingdom of Jerusalem

Ftfy. He almost auctioned england off to go on crusade as it was "always cold and raining". Most of his manpower and wealth was based in the huge piece of western france he'd inherited from henry I.