Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period?

Originally posted by Emperor Barbarossa Originally posted by Maljkovic Ziska is briliant, but Temujin is better, simply because his achievements were greater then Ziska's. He started with 13.000 men, turned them into an army and conqured the world. Beat that First of all, Temujin did not conquer the world. Second of all, his armies were much better than the armies of the Hussites. The Hussite army was basically a gang of rough peasants. Zizka at most had 20,000 men versus the great combined armies of the crusaders from nearly every surrounding country. Just to defeat those armies is a great acheivement. And let's not forget that even with very small armies, the Hussites did pillage areas in Poland, Hungray, and Saxony. Heck, the even made it all of the way to the Baltic Sea.

The great combined armies from other countries rarely outnumbered Ziska's troops. And lets not forget that Temujin personally created his army.

You could make an argument for several but I easily choose Genghis Khan for his unimaginable conquests.

Belisarius was perhaps the greatest general of the period but its hard to put him on the threshold of impervious greatness having the demise that became of him.

His legend would have been vastly improved if he had just been poisoned or killed as opposed to being blinded and forced to beg. Took alot away from his legend...

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by dirtnap You could make an argument for several but I easily choose Genghis Khan for his unimaginable conquests. Belisarius was perhaps the greatest general of the period but its hard to put him on the threshold of impervious greatness having the demise that became of him. His legend would have been vastly improved if he had just been poisoned or killed as opposed to being blinded and forced to beg. Took alot away from his legend... He was not blinded and not forced to beg. That's a common myth which simply isn't true. Within the constraints of his power he did the best job he could. Men like Genghis had no constraints on their plans for action and so could achieve more.

Um, ok. I have little issue standing corrected on Belasarius. In college he is discussed seldom and from what I understood a historian wrote the most accurate accounts of his life and in it contained the plausability of this myth.

Did Belasarius answer to an Emporer or was that a myth too? Who was really giving the orders? It just takes something away from his legend when leaders like Khan who answered to nobody and ruled to great achievement. Although I know he was a brilliant commander.

Edited by dirtnap

Originally posted by Constantine XI Belisarius was an incredibly loyal general who followed his Emperor's orders practically to the letter. We know he was not disgraced because his statues were not torn down, they remained standing at the time of the Fourth Crusade. Had he really fallen out of favour the statues and ceremonial decorations of him would most definitely have been removed. Procopius of Caesarea is the historian you are referring to and indeed Belisarius was an innovative and adaptable commander.

Damn, what are you next of kin?    

The man was all that and then some no question about it OK?

But his legend would have been better off if he seized the thrown during his pinnacle of power and crowned himself emporer. If he had accomplished the same feats but with the utopia of ultimate power being his decisions, I would consider him perhaps the greatest.

My vote goes to Genghis Khan.

Edited by dirtnap

Allthough i real like Heraclius my vote goes to belisarius.

I believe that he was a general with the morden meaning of the word.

1)He make his own unit - The vukelars (a heavy cavaryman that could fight both in scirmish way or just charge to the enemy). From the list of leaders he was the only one that actually had made a unit to counter his enemies.

2)He was a fantastic tactician in the battlefield. He could set up his army in different ways. For example he was the first in history that had succesfully copies the Miltiades formation in Marathon. In Zara battle agaist the pernians he win the battle even if he refuse his centre of his army

3)He was repected and feared by the Huns . He could control in the battlefield and out of it soldiers from different nation and fight styles. Belisarius never controled an homogenus army. So he had to control soldiers with differend kind of fighting style.

 If i will remember more i will edit my post.

 

Why are Tamerlane, Saladin and Genghis Khan included in a section dedicated to Medieval Europe?

Got to be Belisarius. As Procopius, his secretary and historian said:

"The name Belisarius was on the lips of all--for to him were ascribed two victories which had never before been achieved by any one man."

By "two", he's referring to the conquest of the Vandals and the Ostrogoths. However, Belisarius also defeated the Persians early in his career--no easy task considering how many Roman armies had met their demise in Mesopotamia. Perhaps his most magnificent achievement, though, was his saving of Constantinople late in his career from a large raiding army of Cotrigur Huns, even though he only had 300 veterans at his disposal and a few thousand unarmed rabble from the city.

No general in history did more with less than Belisarius.

Oh come on, 300,000 Turks, do you really believe that? There is no way that an army that huge could ever exist in the Middle Ages, nonetheless attack another country. That is such bias by historians of the Middle Ages. The Ottoman army was probably at best 100,000. The Albanians were still very brave, but not as brave as they are portrayed.

How come then in ancient times there were 300,000 Persians who fought 300 Spartans? This is not the ancient times this is the medevil where there are much more people then in ancient times!

Edited by ILIR THE GREAT

Originally posted by Digenis In the siege of Constantinoupolis by Ottomans-1453, participated 200.000 total. 80.000 of them professional soldiers. I wonder what 300.000 Turks where doing on the mountains of Albania

 Holidays perhaps

Originally posted by ILIR THE GREAT Gjergj Kastrioti "Skanderbeg" (meaning "Alexander the Great") from Albania beat 300,000 Turks from the Ottoman empire (who was the biggest and best empire in the world at that time) who were also the best armed empire in the world at that time got beat 25 years in a row without winning a single battle against barely reaching 18,000 Albanians who had only few sticks and rocks ...That's what I call brave!!

Man dont fly

Maybe 20000 Ottomans iis logical, Albanians can be only 5-10000. The terrain advantage helped them. At the last they are defeated and fought for ottoman 450 years.

Ottoman army was a professional army. There were only 5000 jannisay, 30000 spakhs at that time. With other auxillary (ak�nc�,azab,g�n�ll�) total ottoman army can be only 60000-80000.  There wasnt any national army and conscription so you can defeat 300000 ottoman only in your dreams. We cant compare ottoman and albanian army.