Top 100 Generals

 

I'm curious what some of Khalid's tactics were. I personally prefer the use of smaller numbers in ambushes or using movement to win the battles. Vlad's Night Attack is an example of that. Decebal's victories were also impressive.

I realize Napoleon's and Hannibal's years of solo campaigning are only slightly longer but think of this: what would Napoleon be above Alexander if he had died before invading Russia, therefore not losing in the end? My point is that a spot based on whether he lost in the end is shaky and that political factors and life expectancy have too much of an influence on this. It's more accurate to evaluate based on campaigns won and lost overall, not the outcome of his final campaign. Alexander's few campaigns obviously would not be able to compare to Temujin and Napoleon's many.

 

Also, I've been reading up on logistics and are beginning to support a removal of Rommel from the list. Previous members pointed out he was over-hyped by Germany, his campaigns weren't THAT exceptional and there were plenty of mobile commanders as good as him. I'd like to add that the decisions he made in North Africa were ignorant of all logistical considerations. He constantly asked for more supplies, more men, more everything but never understood that the ports of North Africa couldn't support these demands, which he only realized after the fact. He also made the problem even worse by continuing to extend his supply lines with offensives that would never achieve a grand strategic victory in North Africa. By extending his supply lines and receiving reinforcements, he hampered other German theaters. Let the flood gates open for Rommel bashers.

 

With defeats like that who needs victories.

 

Some chronicles about Stefan from the outside:

 

 

 

 

 

Exactly. These official Ottoman numbers are exaggerated over 3 times.

 

Originally posted by Romano-Dacis Sikora's main arguments come from the fact that he doesn't count camp assistants (the equivalent of squires) as part of the army, but that's pretty dumb. Supposedly a Western knight needed a support team of 5 other people, so should we divide all the European armies by 5? No.

 

No ?

First of all, Ottomans counted each living creature. It means they counted all people and all animals (camels, horses).

Moreover, Europeans didn't count camp followers to the amount of its army. They counted only soldiers (for example they counted knights and their retainers who followed knights in a battle, but they didn't count wagon drivers, foragers, stablemen, tailors, cooks and another men who didn't follow knigts in a battle). The Ottomans counted everybody.

That is why Polish army composed of 10 000 cavalrymen was in fact more numerous than Ottoman army composed of 30 000 cavalrymen.

 

Well, when we look at facts, not just chronicles which are biased, we see a different story. I didn't say Stefan wasn't a good general I just said he might not be a top 100 generals material.

 

His defeat of the Golden horde wasn't glamorous because every one had defeated them by that time and it was in a very weak state. Dynastic conflict, wars against every one and large defections to other tatar states like those in Siberia and Crimea all affected the strength of the horde and led to its eventual distruction not long after that battle.

 

the second point is the conflict between what is said in the chronicles and what happened on the ground. When he took wallachia the ottomans were engaged against Venice and the hungarians who were much more potent than a far away principality that occupied a vassal who just paid tribute. The Venetians and ungarians threatened the existance of the Ottoman empire in europe. When they were dealt with they launched a campaing to regain what they lost, the lost the first round and won the second. and remember this, he only defeated real ottoman forces once, he beat their vassals, other Romanian nobles, many times and there is a lot of difference. The ottomans abandoned their attack though it was successful for various reasons but they weren't defeated. Later when a new Sultan came, he decided to continue what his father didn't and Bayazid attacked Moldavia and successfully conquered it though it took some time. Stefan beat the ottomans in the last campaign several times but in the end he lost the war and in 1486 he accepted vassalge which was againt not a bad thing, he was still independent in his own country and fought the poles under the name of the Ottomans and who know, may they even gave him some troops.

 

Al-Jassas