Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period?
Printed From: History Community ~ All Empires
Category: Regional History or Period History
Forum Name: Medieval Europe
Forum Discription: The Middle Ages: AD 500-1500
URL: http://www.allempires.com/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2939
Printed Date: 25-Apr-2024 at 12:37
Software Version: Web Wiz Forums 9.56a - http://www.webwizforums.com
Topic: Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period?
Posted By: Winterhaze13
Subject: Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period?
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 16:18
|
Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period? Period considered is 400 to about 1450.
Belisarius (505-565 A.D.)- Thracian General for Byzantium, defeated the Persians and regained Italy. One of the most underappreciated in history.
Attila the Hun- Terrorized the Roman Empre in the 5th cetury A.D. Theodoric- Ostrogoth, invaded Italy in the 5th century and established a Gothic kingdom there. Clovis(R.481-511)- Frank, expanded the Kingdom to the Pyranees. Heraclius- Byzantine, expanded the Empire eastward into Persia in the 7th century. Richard I "Lionheart"- English King and crusader, went along on the third crusade and gained valuable territory for the Christina cause, although fell short of Jerusalem. Saladin- Kurd and Ruler of Egypt in the late 12th century. Expanded into Syria and northern mesopotamia. Although, best known for winning the Battle of hattin to regain Jerusalem for the Muslim side in 1187. Genghis Khan- Mongol, late 12th century and early 13th, unified Mongolia and expanded its Empire to China, Russia and much of Asia. Tamerlane- Tarter, conquerored Persia and much of the middle east. Although many historians downplay his successes today. (R. 1381-1405) Also: Charles Martel and Charlemagne- Franks, Martel faught the Saracens in Spain, while Charles helped expand his empire eastward. ------------- Indeed, history is nothing more than a tableau of crimes and misfortunes. -- Voltaire French author, humanist, rationalist, & satirist (1694 - 1778) |
Replies:
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 17:30
|
My vote went to Belisarius, not only because he almost singlehandedly led the East-Roman empire to it's largest ever territorial expansion,thereby defeating the two most vigorous Germanic tribes the Ostrogoths and the Vandals, but also he seems to have been a decent chap, unlike his two great Byzantine contemporaries and rivals Justinian and Narses, the Eunuch.
------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Perseas
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 20:35
| I 'll also go with Belisarius. He was a brilliant strategist and in many cases the armies of his enemies were outnumbering his own army but it didnt stop him from defeating them. I have to mention also his loyalty to the emperor. |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 12-Apr-2005 at 22:04
|
sounds like an interesting fellow. would you have some good links on him? ------------- |
Posted By: Thracian
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 00:20
|
that is amaizing. I did not know about this Belisarius. Makes sence that he was underappreciated as WinterHaze 13 mentioned. |
Posted By: Imperator Invictus
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 00:40
|
Belisarius was surely the best commander of the Eastern Roman Empire
(or any Roman commander), and an interesting character nontheless. Few
commanders had such a distinguished career in arms, and at the same
time such an unfortunate ending. By the end of his career, Iustinian
grew fearful of his power even though he remained loyal throughout his
life. But due to such politics, he was reduced to a beggar by the end.
The tragic fall of his career gave way to rumors that he Iustinian had
him blinded. Belisarius also had an absolutely terrible love life.
Gibbons calls him "blessed in war, cursed in love" Anyhow, there are too many people that would qualify for the nomination. Among those listed, I chose Timur Lenk (Tamerlane) because no other military leader commanded such fear as he did, and defeated so many neighboring states. As "Prince of destruction" Genghis Khan pales compared to Tamerlane. However, he was by no means the best leader in both military and statesmanship. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 01:42
As you are such an avid reader, there is a novel about him by Robert Graves, author of "I, Claudius". It's called "Count Belisarius". ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Frederick Roger
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 09:07
Nuno Álvares Pereira, the Holy Constable of Portugal. Too nationalistic a choise? Well.... yeah. Got a problem? ------------- |
Posted By: Dawn
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 10:35
I'll have to take a look for that one. thanks ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 13-Apr-2005 at 17:14
The story that Belisarius ended as a blind beggar is, what we would call these days, an "urban myth." Modern historians seem to agree that he died as a retired army officer on a modest pension on some estate in Anatolia at the age of sixty, with full eyesight. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 00:33
| Hmm... where do I start... |
Posted By: Scytho-Sarmatian
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 03:14
| My vote goes to the Scourge of God (Attila). Who else could have brought the varied forces together to take on the Roman Empire and bring it to its knees? However, he let success slip through his hands too easily. Imagine how different things would be today if he could have maintained his dominance. |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 06:37
I don't want to imagine that. He might have been a great military leader, but the Huns weren't exactly known for their cultural achievements. Eating raw horse meat and dressing up in field-mice pants isn't really my cup of tea. So, I'm rather relieved the Huns "civilisation" didn't really become the dominant one in Europe. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 07:27
Look also "Justinian and Theodora" by Robert Browning http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0500250995/002-6558999-4324058?v=glance - http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0500250995/002 -6558999-4324058?v=glance |
Posted By: Belisarius
Date Posted: 14-Apr-2005 at 11:08
| Attila owed his success to the superiority of his fighting force, rather than tactical genius. It has been proven several times in history that the fast-moving horse archer is superior to slow-moving heavy infantry. The horses that Attila used were the swift ponies of the steppes which were much faster than the heavy warhorses bred in Europe. Even had the Romans bred faster horses, they relied much more on their infantry than cavalry. |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 04:56
|
My vote goes to Philip II Augustus
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 08:12
you western, allways show facts what you want them to seem.
Attila didn't terrorize the Roman Empire. He taught the Gaul, the Germans, and all others how to re-gain "their lands"
so that's why all barbarian europeans joined him ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 08:15
|
How about 300.000 Celtic civillians Caesar murdered??? Oh it's not terrorism, it's only the greatness of Rome ------------- |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 10:54
|
Many Germans resisted Attila, they resented the idea of having to pay tribute to him. Though strictly speaking, Atilla is kind of before the medieval peroid. -------------  Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 12:58
|
I though Gauls fought against Attila at Chalons along with the Visigoths, Franks, Romans, Saxons, Burgundians, Alans ect......
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 14:04
Thats obviously western propaganda  ------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 16:52
|
Belisarius was the best because he gained his victories over strong enemies and in bad times when his empire in not greatest situation ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 19:30
|
many tribes from germania, gaul joined him ------------- |
Posted By: Cywr
Date Posted: 16-Apr-2005 at 19:51
|
And even more oppsed them.
------------- Arrrgh!!"
|
Posted By: The Golden Phallanx
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2005 at 18:11
|
Yea I know it's so obvious eh? We're all just being brain-washed aren't we! Very effective propaganda, it's being posted everywhere! ps: Would you ppl stop saying "western" propaganda, or western lies, or how the west invents the "facts"...etc There are lies everywhere people, not jsut in the west. Set down your prejudices and start considering other sources. Persoanlly I trust western documents above nonexistant asian ones. ------------- We are all a result of what we have lived. Culture, attitude, perspective. For everything we do, there is a reason. There is no true evil, only the absence of proper communication. |
Posted By: The Golden Phallanx
Date Posted: 29-Apr-2005 at 18:19
|
Belisarius certainly was a great general, but let us not forget Slilicho! ------------- We are all a result of what we have lived. Culture, attitude, perspective. For everything we do, there is a reason. There is no true evil, only the absence of proper communication. |
Posted By: Kenaney
Date Posted: 30-Apr-2005 at 14:34
| My vote goes to Atilla the Hun because he brought a change in European ethnic groups and history. |
Posted By: Decebal
Date Posted: 25-May-2005 at 11:24
|
Genghis Khan. Not a lot of people know this, but he rose from almost nothing. An outcast from his tribe, he grew up in hiding with his mother and brothers. Through sheer determination, he first gained control of his old clan, usurped by his uncle, then the entire tribe of the Mongols.He then proceeded to unite the numerous Mongolic tribes, such as the Merkits, Onggirats, Uigurs, etc. This was achieved in numerous bloddy battels, often against superior forces. He then conquered Northern China, the Kara-Khitans, and Kwharezm: altogether an area as large as Europe. His sons and grandons proceeded to expand this territory to almost all of Asia and Eastern Europe. His greatest merit I think, lies in his rising from obscurity to unify the Mongol tribes. Many people will tell you that archers on horseback will defeat the infantry-based armies of sedentary peoples, but he had to fight against other armies based on horse archers as well and won. ------------- What is history but a fable agreed upon? Napoleon Bonaparte Even if you are a minority of one, the truth is the truth.- Mohandas Gandhi 
|
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 26-May-2005 at 22:09
|
Firstly, Komenos is right about Belisarius, he did not receive the ungrateful end some historians paint. Proof of this is that monuments of the great general existed in Constantinople for hundreds of years after his death. Had he really been humiliated there is no way Justinian would have allowed these to stand. Id be throwing up between Genghis and Belisarius. I have massive respect for any man who goes from eating rodents as a boy to being the most powerful man alive. I am not too sure of Genghis' actual ability to command though, he could easily have left the commanding to competent subordinates. I think the Khan's greatest achievement was political: unifying the steppe tribes through determination and uncompomising brutality and then channeling their abilities into attacks on traditionally more powerful enemies. With Belisarius though, we have a clear close-up perspective of a brilliantly imaginative and charismatic commander. Have a read of the Siege of Rome when he defended it from Vitigis and you gain some measure of the resourcefulness of the man. The fact that he was politically non-active was only a praiseworthy trait in him, a fact which Justinian would have done well to acknowledge. ------------- |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 27-May-2005 at 14:10
|
I have this infatuation with Robert Guiscard...
Granted, he never had the resources or manpower of Belisarius, Genghis Khan, Richard or Saladin, but he certainly made most of what he had. The Hauteville family were virtually nobodies in Normandy before setting out for the Mediterranean. Later they had defeated enemies as diverse as the Lombards, Greeks and Saracens, creating a kingdom which far outshone the Duchy of Normandy. ------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 28-May-2005 at 10:30
Quite a family, the Guiscards, first Robert's formidable wife, Sikelgaita the "Warrior Princess", daughter of a Lombard King who used to fight side by side with her husband in battles. Then Bohemund, Robert's son from a previous marriage, giant of a knight, terror of the Byzantine empire, arch-enemy of my great forefather Alexios Komnenos, one of the leaders of the first crusade, Prince of Antioch, etc. Then Robert Guiscard's grandson Tancred,another leader of the crusade and first Christian to enter Jerusalem when the city was taken in 1099 and later Prince of Galilee. And so on, they made quite in impact in Italy and the Levant. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Reginmund
Date Posted: 28-May-2005 at 11:33
I didn't know Sikelgaita was such a tough bitch, haha, thanks for the input. And just for the sake of correctness, "Guiscard" was only a nickname given to Robert, not their family name, that was Hauteville.
Yeah, they kicked ass.  ------------- |
Posted By: faram
Date Posted: 07-Jun-2005 at 16:44
I think, but I'm not an English native speaker, that here terrorize doesn't mean be a terrorist but cause terror, considering that he caused fear to the Romans without destroying them, it's correct. My vote has gone for Belisarius. |
Posted By: Sanimideg
Date Posted: 08-Jun-2005 at 10:19
------------- SRBIJA DO TOKIJA! |
Posted By: Goblin
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 14:49
|
I voted "Other". Greatest leader does not, necessarily, mean nicest or that most agree with him. Anyhow, I would vote for Simon de Montfort. He was the key military leader in the Albigensian Crusade. Due to the fact that he was ruthless and much of what aimed for was personal gain, he is often downplayed. I believe that, without his leadership, that particular crusade would not have made it as far as it did. The crusade, finally, began to falter around the time of his demise ------------- "Man is free at the moment he wishes to be." -Voltaire http://www.precious-dreams.net/zombie/"> 
|
. (Yeah, I just wanted an excuse to use that smiley.)Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 16:57
Although I agree with most you've said about Simon de Monfort, I believe he is not in the same league as any of the other above contestants, just simply because he only played in the second or third division. The historical significance of the Albigensian Crusade has become rather overestimated in the last two decades, due to the inclusion of the Cathars in that great fictional web of conspiracy, Cathars, Templars, Rosicruscians etc. that has been popularised through numerous novels and pseudo-factual accounts. In fact, this crusade was a rather minor affair, a petty struggle for the dominance obver the South-West of France, between the local houses of Toulouse and Trencavel, the Kings of Aragon and France, and some rootless adventures like Simon de Montfort. The whole scale of this crusade was so small, the numbers of combatants involved so low, that you just are not able compare the military abilities of S.d.M. with those of Attila or Belisarius etc. Simon never commanded more than a few thousand men, he never fought any real battles that demanded strategical genius, the whole campaign in the Midi was just an endless sequence of sieges of small cities and even smaller castles, with the occasional skirmish and pillage of the countryside thrown in for good measure. Sure, Simon made the best of what was to his disposal, which wasn't a lot, and through sheer ambition and ruthlessness and the lack of any really organised enemies and resistance, he carved out a nice little territory for himself, but how he would have performed in a real war, in a real battle, we'll never know. His crusade was in rapid decline even before his death, mainly due to the lack of military and political support, but also because of a chain of his own military and political blunders that showed the limitations of Simon de Montfort's abilities. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 09-Jun-2005 at 22:49
Remember the siege of Beziers when they were storming the city and the issue of it being inhabited by both heretics and Catholics arose. "Kill them all, God will recognise his own" de Montfort said. What a lazy bum.------------- |
Posted By: Komnenos
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 01:09
You can blame Simon de Montfort for many things, but not for that famous cynical statement. That was Arnauld-Amaury, Archbishop of Narbonne, a good Catholic it seems. ------------- [IMG]http://i71.photobucket.com/albums/i137/komnenos/crosses1.jpg"> |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 02:42
|
Ah yes you are correct, my mistake. But that statement is just shocking. What a nice way for Innocent III to wipe clean the desolation brought about by the 4th Crusade, launch another crusade and hope it's success clears everyone's memory of past atrocities. ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 10-Jun-2005 at 12:28
|
Uigurs are Turkic, not Mongolic. Besides, many Turkic tribes joined him in his conquests. The biggest population in the Mongolian army was consisted of Turkic tribes', such as Uzbeks, Turkmens and Uygurs. Timur was the greatest among these leaders. He was a very successful and wise military man, and a smart warior. Salahaddin Eyubî, Genghiz Khan, Attila, Belisarius, Kul Tigin, Mete Han, Alp Arslan, and Turghril Begh were also important military leaders of that age... ------------- |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 13-Jun-2005 at 05:04
|
I vote for Belisarius too. By the way the leaders and nations who ruled western Europe later were all the subordinates of Attila. (Orastes and his son, Odoaker, the Merovings etc. |
Posted By: Monteleone
Date Posted: 23-Jun-2005 at 16:40
|
I voted for Belisarius, he is the military leader we know most about on a first hand basis. All the others, Great leaders but our information about their battles is mostly second hand. Belisaruis's secretary Procopius wrote down the events as they where occuring. If you haven't read Procopius's History of the Wars, I highly recomend dong so. I felt I was standing on the ramparts of Rome while the Goth's where having their oxens pull the towers to walls. And I could just see all the Romans terrified, scrambling around in fear, and Belisarius coming on the rampart, standing there laughing before he....... Don't want to spoil the rest. But a classic by all accounts. Poor Wittiges, he was clearly out Generaled |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 07:57
|
"the greatest military leader of the medieval period" is too general a criteria, i think. Not to mention the medieval period, which is a huge pool to catch THE fish, if you know what i mean. Definitely, all of the above were great in a way or the other. Someone said here a big truth before: one leader's greatness might be justified exactly by the lack of a huge army to command and a great state/country to gather resources from. Therefor, i'd like to act as overpatriotic and mention at least one great romanian military leader from the mentioned period: Stefan cel Mare (Stephen the Great being the most used english name for him). He led Moldavia for 47 years, defending it against the Ottoman Empire (Mehmed the Second, Beyazid the Second), the Hungarian Empire (Matthias Corvinus) and Polish Empire (i'll be back with the name of their leader). All this battles had one aspect in common: the Moldavian army was significantly less numerous. Add this to the huge cultural heritage he left behind (check UNESCO for refferences). ------------- |
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 10:31
|
Indeed, look on the %20Hundred%20Years%27%20War" title="Hundred Years' War - Hundred Years' War there were small battles with at most 20.000 people on both sides. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Castillon the last battle (13-16.000 people) and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podul_Inalt - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Podul_Inalt with (170.000 people) A lot of people don't understand the contribution of Romanians at European civilization. ------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 13:31
|
It's about prestige. It's about propaganda. Half the graduates from foreign schools outside The Balkans hardly know where Romania is on the map, let aside its history or capital city. Throughout history, foreign countries understood the role of marketing, you know. Making national history sell itself: in books, in movies, in merchandise and whatnot. Romania is best known by Vlad Dracul (thanks, Bram Stoker) alone. Other countries managed to have influence around their neighbours, having raveging wars accompanied by expansionist periods. We managed the survive all our neighbours without loosing too much of our country's lands. I'd be rather curious how many people around this forum can name some other romanian leaders, beside Vlad Dracul and Stefan cel Mare ------------- |
Posted By: Richard XIII
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 13:45
|
Me, Vlad Catrina and Decebal and I think some turks
------------- "I want to know God's thoughts... ...the rest are details." Albert Einstein |
Posted By: Temujin
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 14:10
how about Ion Antonescu and Nicolae Ceausescu? ------------- |
Posted By: TheodoreFelix
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 14:15
|
How offensive. Where is George Kastrioti Scanderbeg? He kept the Ottomans out of Medieval Albania for 25 years when they were at the top of their game and one of the very very few to receive "atleta christi" by the Catholic Church...
"Scanderbeg is one of the greatest generals ever" http://bjoerna.dk/albansk-historie/Holberg-on-Scanderbeg.htm - Wrote the famouse Historian Ludvig Holberg in 1739 In one of his victories, he defeated an Ottoman army of 70,000 with just 15,000 Albanian soldiers. He kept the Ottomans out of kruja 3 times. On some occasions the castle had a garrison of as little as 3000-4000 Albanians against armies that were about the same size as the ones at Constantinople... ------------- |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 27-Jun-2005 at 14:58
|
True, but i was thinking of medieval leaders mainly. Nevertheless, it pleases me to see some answers to my question ------------- |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 29-Jun-2005 at 18:37
|
Subedei Bahadur
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 07-Jul-2005 at 05:00
|
Attila the Hun-
"" Terrorized the Roman Empre in the 5th cetury A.D.""
In other words, he succeeded at what he did!
thats my vote.
------------- 
|
Posted By: TJK
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 02:28
Hmm..let see, what about Bohdan Oneeyed, Peter Raresh, Michael the Brave, Jeremy and Simon Mohila, Stephen Tomza, Gapar Grazziani, Basil Lupul and Constantine Kantemir |
Posted By: minchickie
Date Posted: 08-Jul-2005 at 07:51
|
I highly disagree, since when does one owe their victory to the one they've defeated? He used different weapons, had less junk to lug around, was faster and better at arching and encircled his opponent' army from the outside in! Pretty genious if you ask me which is why he succeeded so well. -------------
|
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 09:01
Bah! They would had been assimilated eventually, as happened to Germans and Magyars, or to Mongolians in China. Steak Tatar is good food, maybe at the origins of modern hamburger and it has some merit to eat raw meat. Fire? What for? I'm Atilla the scourge of God! I should have voted for Atilla maybe... but I did for Saladin (just on sympathy I must admit). |
Posted By: vulkan02
Date Posted: 16-Jul-2005 at 22:19
|
and what happend to Charlemagne how come he's not in the list????
------------- The beginning of a revolution is in reality the end of a belief - Le Bon Destroy first and construction will look after itself - Mao |
Posted By: timurshah
Date Posted: 04-Dec-2005 at 10:06
|
my vote to Timur...
WORLD LL ALWAYS REMEMBER HİM...! |
*TİMUR
Posted By: Justinian
Date Posted: 14-Dec-2005 at 21:24
|
Tough choice but when I think of Belisarius' defence of Rome it becomes easier. I think someone made a remark about belisarius doing more with less, I wonder how much more he could have accomplished had Justinian given him more resources and support (or any Also, an honorable mention to those mongol generals, not just Genghis Khan. The forces they went up against were normally much bigger and they completely destroyed them. ------------- "War is a cowardly escape from the problems of peace."--Thomas Mann 
|
). Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 16:37
|
|
Posted By: cg rommel
Date Posted: 22-Dec-2005 at 17:00
| i dont know, genghis, or belisarius..... |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 06:08
| How about William of Normandy when he got England in 1066? As He got the English land, England became a rising world power after his reign... |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 16:12
But he wasn't undefeated wasn't he? He conquered England but couldn't defeat Scotland and also suffered setbacks in France. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 17:01
|
Most generals suffered defeats, including several on the list. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: demon
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 15:31
|
What about Charles Martel? He stopped the spread of Islam by defeating an outnumbering cavalry-based army with a band of unarmored man-at-arms at Tours. The fact that his infantry units withstood several cavalry charge itself is unbelievable, given the conditions at that time. ------------- Grrr.. |
Posted By: Heraclius
Date Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 21:55
|
^^^ Theres more than a few members on this site that would *fiercely* I think there is to much doubt about Tours for Martel to get much of any credit from it. ------------- A tomb now suffices him for whom the world was not enough. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 05:58
I am one of those anti-Tours fanatics who foams at the mouth when
"decisive moment in world history" and "Tours" are placed in the same
sentence  . If anything, continuing
Iberian resistance probably was more of a hindrance to Moorish
expansion into France than Martel. That is if we ignore the even more
important overstretching of Islamic forces and lack of time to
consolidate conquests.
------------- |
Posted By: Maju
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 08:12
|
I agree that Martel was more of an opportunist, seeking particularly to
destabilize Aquitaine by actually helping the Moorish raiders. Eudes
the Great managed to defeat them in several occasions but Martel
hostigated him as well from the north until Aquitaine was unable to
resist on its own forces. Then, and only then, did Martel intervene
securing his hegemony after both Aquitanians and Muslims had been
weakened fighting each other. Wise but opportunist. More important in this regard was Charlemagne, who not just expanded Martel's empire into Saxony, Italy and other regions, but also stabilished the Marca Hispanica, though some political errors costed him dearly (i.e. Roncesvaux). While even Charlemagne is not undefeated, Al Mansur is. Abu Amir Muhammad ben Abi Amir al-Maafii, best known as Al Mansur (The Victor), favorite of the weak Caliph Hisham II and the actual ruler (dictator) of Al Andalus since 979 until his death in 1002, was never defeated in all his campaigns, that went through Spain and North Africa. Yet, his efforts, that humilliated the Christian princes and secured temporarily the Cordobese hegemony on all Iberia and the Maghreb, only brought the Caliphate to the economical and political disaster. After his death, Al Andalus went quickly downhill until the Caliphate was dissolved in 1031. ------------- 
NO GOD, NO MASTER! |
Posted By: Mosquito
Date Posted: 27-Dec-2005 at 20:28
|
You guys forgot about Samo who defeated Avars, formed first Slavic empire and with his slavic army defeated Franks at the battle of Wogatisburg and invaded frankish empire. A great career for someone who started as frankish merchant from Sens. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samo ------------- "I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 08-Jan-2006 at 17:53
|
IMHO the best military leader in medieval Europe was Jan Zizka
(pronounce Yan Zheezhka). He was a Czech mercenary and the leader of
Hussites. As a mercenary he fought in the biggest battles of this time
in Europe. I mean Tannenberg/Grunwald 1410 and Azincourt 1415. After
Jan Hus had died (pr. Yan Hoos), he became the leader of Hussites. He
was a great military innovator. He won many battles with much bigger
and stronger German armies if not all the battles. The reason why I choose him is that, in fact, there is plenty of great military leaders but I do not know anybody who won the battle when blind except for Jan Zizka. 
Unfortunately, I do not remember where this battle took place.
Nevertheless I remember that the circumstances were very unfavourable
for Hussites but because of Zizka's genius they won. In addition, Zizka
was blind during this battle but he overcame all handicaps and
setbacks. Here you have more info about him - http://user.intop.net/%7Ejhollis/janzizka.htm - Jan Zizka .
------------- |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 25-Feb-2006 at 20:24
|
Yes, I agree with you. He was a very great general. He took an army of farmers, and converted farm implements(farm wagons, flails, pitchforks, etc.) into military weapons. He had some great victories with unfavorable odds. Also, the Wagenburg was a great innovation that makes him very famous. Being one of the first general's to use gunpowder weapons in masses puts him up there in the ranks.
------------- 
|
Posted By: Spartakus
Date Posted: 26-Feb-2006 at 16:48
|
I do not know about the best,but i do not know that Belisarius was one of the best. ------------- "There are worse crimes than burning books. One of them is not reading them. " --- Joseph Alexandrovitch Brodsky, 1991, Russian-American poet, b. St. Petersburg and exiled 1972 (1940-1996) |
Posted By: Raider
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 02:54
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 06:54
|
I don't know about Grunwald, but I know that I have never read anywhere that he served at Agincourt. It is very hard to say that he is the best, but he has one thing on most generals, he never lost one battle, and he did that whenever he was one-eyed and even blind for the last few years of his life.
-------------
|
Posted By: Dampier
Date Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 16:43
|
Yeah Zizka was amazing. Even if he was a religous psycopath. As for fighting at Tannenburg...well he was commander of a nearby castle and its garrison so its possible but nobody knows for sure.
How about the Black Prince? (or King Arthur! ------------- 
|
Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 16:09
|
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
|
Posted By: Travis Congleton
Date Posted: 06-Mar-2006 at 18:36
|
I am quite surprised that Belisarius beats Genghis Khan by almost a
margin of 2-1. Some Top 10 Lists have Belisarius on them, but
most Top 3 Lists have Genghis Khan on them. Interesting, my vote goes to Genghis Khan. |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 06:35
 
Hussite Infantry
Hussite Infantry and Wallachian Rider
 Hussite Wagonburg
I checked in the book about Hussites and
their military campaigns and there is clearly written that Jan Zizka
served both at Tannenberg/Grunwald and at Azincourt. But I do not exclude
that the author is wrong. It may be a common myth that Zizka fought at
Tannenberg/Grunwald as Raider wrote. I don't know. I have read merely
one book on the Hussites so I'm not enough competent to express decisive opinions.
------------- |
Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 11-Mar-2006 at 09:54
| One thing about Belisarius... His campaign in Africa was a literal walk in the park. Vandals were never one of the most powerfull Germanic tribes, and the stay in Africa only weakened them further. The whole campaign went without a single battle, and not even a real siege! |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:56
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:01
But he couldn't even defeat the Scots at a much older age. I don't think he should be considered the greatest general in the Middle Ages, since most great generals can defeat easy enemies. -------------
|
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:45
As much as I agree Martel is rather overrated. I wouldn't give the credits to the Iberian resistance. I would rather credit the Duchy of Aquitaine and the Siege of Toulouse. ------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Exarchus
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:48
|
Finally I voted for Tamerlane, mainly because modern and western historians tend to underrate his achievements.
------------- Vae victis! |
Posted By: Maljkovic
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 15:13
|
The great combined armies from other countries rarely outnumbered Ziska's troops. And lets not forget that Temujin personally created his army. |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 15:55
|
The largest army that the Hussites had in the end with Prokop was about 18,000 men. The crusading armies were insane compared to this amount. Temujin was a great general, but he had his far share of lost battles. Unlike Temujin, Zizka never lost a single battle in his career. Though Temujin's armies did more, Zizka was the leader of a rebel army, not an army that could actually conquer land. This is why it is hard to compare two totally different generals with two totally different objectives.
-------------
|
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 01:33
|
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... |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 03:15
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. ------------- |
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 13-Mar-2006 at 08:39
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. |
Posted By: Constantine XI
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 00:00
|
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. ------------- |
Posted By: dirtnap
Date Posted: 14-Mar-2006 at 15:24
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. ------------- 
|
Posted By: ILIR THE GREAT
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 00:19
|
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 |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 15-Mar-2006 at 05:19
|
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 If i will remember more i will edit my post.
------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Emperor Barbarossa
Date Posted: 16-Mar-2006 at 07:03
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. -------------
|
Posted By: Degredado
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 02:55
|
Why are Tamerlane, Saladin and Genghis Khan included in a section dedicated to Medieval Europe? ------------- Vou votar nas putas. Estou farto de votar nos filhos delas |
Posted By: Guests
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 04:23
|
Attila the Hun Best, He had littlebit more resistans to fight against |
Posted By: Antoninus
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 16:59
|
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. ------------- In hoc signo, vinces. |
Posted By: Jazz
Date Posted: 17-Mar-2006 at 19:08
|
I voted Belisarius - I'm sure he would be more appreciated if the West did not ignore the Empire of Constantinople like it does. However, one could argue that that Heraclius's campaign in Mesopotamia and Palestine could be called the real 'First Crusade'.... ------------- http://www.forums.internationalhockey.net/index.php?/index.php?referrerid=8 - International Hockey Forums |
Posted By: ILIR THE GREAT
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 01:25
|
How come then in ancient times there were 300,000 Persians who fought 300 Spartans? |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 03:14
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  |
Posted By: BlindOne
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 06:49
|
Holidays perhaps ------------- That I am stricken and can't let you go When the heart is cold, there's no hope, and we know That I am crippled by all that you've done Into the abyss, will I run |
Posted By: Digenis
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 15:20
Seems like a combination of Asterix and Conan! |
Posted By: Evrenosgazi
Date Posted: 18-Mar-2006 at 15:29
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 (akıncı,azab,gönüllü) 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. |