Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period?

With no doubt - Amir Temur, or how you call him Tamerlane!

Originally posted by R_AK47 You seem to have an extreme bias against crusaders.  If I were to state that muslim Turks were nothing more than a "pack of glorified thugs and thieves", as you state crusaders were, you would be warning or banning me.  The moderation of this forum needs to be less biased and more even handed.  At any rate, here is the source you requested regarding Justinian's statue:   http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/vryonis_legacy_2.html   As you can see, the it was the Turks who destroyed the statue, melting it down and making a cannon out of it.  It was not the crusaders, whom you seem quick to blame for many things.  The crusaders had nothing to do with the destruction of this monument.  At least they respected it and left it in place.   EDIT: According to this link, Mehmet like to collect Christian Holy Relics.  I wonder what his purpose for that was, what relics he collected, and what eventually became of them?

Firstly, thanks for the link.

Secondly, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other members of bias. Your own Islamophobic prejudice permeated nearly every thread so far it is able to. You instantly leap to conclusions that the Christian forces were always morally better than Islamic ones, you never weigh evidence, you never give credit to the other side where it is due.......... Honestly now, when I say the crusaders were brutes it is justified by a tonne of historical evidence. Even the Byzantines thought the Muslims were better, as demonstrated by the quote from Nicetas Choniates. But as usual you ignore anything that runs contrary to your narrow hate for the non-Christian world, you equate the virtual destruction of an entire city by the crusaders with the destruction of one statue by the Turks.

I will start taking you seriously when you start examining history with the impartial qualities of a proper historian. As for complaining about moderating standards, that criticism is something I would expect from someone who is silly and childish enough to earn themselves a warning over some pseudo-medieval fantasy trolling about relics.

Originally posted by Constantine XI Originally posted by R_AK47 You seem to have an extreme bias against crusaders.  If I were to state that muslim Turks were nothing more than a "pack of glorified thugs and thieves", as you state crusaders were, you would be warning or banning me.  The moderation of this forum needs to be less biased and more even handed.  At any rate, here is the source you requested regarding Justinian's statue:   http://www.myriobiblos.gr/texts/english/vryonis_legacy_2.html   As you can see, the it was the Turks who destroyed the statue, melting it down and making a cannon out of it.  It was not the crusaders, whom you seem quick to blame for many things.  The crusaders had nothing to do with the destruction of this monument.  At least they respected it and left it in place.   EDIT: According to this link, Mehmet like to collect Christian Holy Relics.  I wonder what his purpose for that was, what relics he collected, and what eventually became of them? Firstly, thanks for the link. Secondly, I hardly think you are in a position to accuse other members of bias. Your own Islamophobic prejudice permeated nearly every thread so far it is able to. You instantly leap to conclusions that the Christian forces were always morally better than Islamic ones, you never weigh evidence, you never give credit to the other side where it is due.......... Honestly now, when I say the crusaders were brutes it is justified by a tonne of historical evidence. Even the Byzantines thought the Muslims were better, as demonstrated by the quote from Nicetas Choniates. But as usual you ignore anything that runs contrary to your narrow hate for the non-Christian world, you equate the virtual destruction of an entire city by the crusaders with the destruction of one statue by the Turks. I will start taking you seriously when you start examining history with the impartial qualities of a proper historian. As for complaining about moderating standards, that criticism is something I would expect from someone who is silly and childish enough to earn themselves a warning over some pseudo-medieval fantasy trolling about relics.

Edited by R_AK47 - 29-May-2006 at 22:43

I wouldnt really have put Saladin on there, a much better 'politician' than an actual general. Likewise I must disagree with you IntheFade, about Frederick II. As much as I find him an intriguing character, I dont think he really cuts it as a general.

nationalism not do, please Belisarius greatest commander is one, but the greatest Genghis Khan is reminding required empire itself has created the world's fourth one conquered 34 million square kilometers over an area now, and beat most commander's defeat, have I told the truth should

Why not Tran Hung Dao? He defeated Mongol, stopped The strongest army conquert to the south and Australia. A great general is not who got more land, got more army. But the one who could defeat other generals.  So I vote for Tran Hung Dao 

This sort of question is always hard to compare. Every war leaders and army have different situation. But this list shouldn't contain Asian leaders. In medieval time Asian generals were far better than western ones. 

Genghis Khan.  He conquered vast territories and held together the largest empire since Rome.

Most of you probably have never heard about this king but it was one of the most sucessful kings of medieval times. Bolesław the Brave from Poland. He spent all his reign on wars with neighbours, invading all of them, defeating Holy Roman Empire, Bohemia and Kiev Rus.

Boleslav the Brave