Forgotten Generals

Al-Jassas

...Excellent choice, but you mustn't forget that the Byzantine military was decisively weakened in power in the centuries following the defeat at Yarmuk, the following destruction of their Christian-Syrian client kingdoms and the split with Rome in 1054. However, despite all that, anyone who can defeat the imperial Byzantine army in battle in a time in which it was still relatively powerful (1071 - Manzikert: the rot set in after the early 1200s Latin invasion) gets a nod from me!

I'd also have to include Kimon - think of his victory at Eurymedon in 466, which essentially ended Darius' satrapy of c.511. However, in retropsect, Plutarch does overemphasise his military prowess - he states that Eurymedon was more important and impressive than Salamis, Plataea and Marathon (490, 480, 479), which it clearly wasn't, and if we examine the ridiculously ambitious Egyptian exhibition of 459-4, and the siege of Thasos in 465-3, we can consider Kimon to have not been an exceptionally brilliant commander. However, it was, for all his pan-hellenism, his moves that actually built much of the future Athenian empire - from his operations in the early 480s/late 470s in Thrace, it was thanks to him that the colony of Amphipolis could be founded by Athens, and thus economic dominance over much of the north-eastern medditeranian. However, by any accounts, Eurymedon was a triumph - its' just sad that his political naievity and the political brilliance of Ephilates and Perikles in 462 lead to his dismissal.

 

I must also mention Gonzalo Cordoba "El Gran Capitan"; Isabella and Ferdinand's chief commander, who perfected the "tercio" manuvouer and in the 1494-1516 Italian wars, performed exceptionally, wining vast victories, such as Garigliano and Cerignola in c.1503, where he decisively defeated the French forces with gunpowder for the first time in European history. He may have lost Naples at Marigliano in 1515, but when we consider that, following the treaty of Etaples in 1494 and Barcelona in 1493, Charles VII and Rouen were able to concentrate most of the unified French army in Italy, what he achieved under the circumstances is clearly remarkable!

 

All the generals of the great Arab conquests from 630-850. Every conquest movement in history was killed by research from military historians except the Arab conquests. The only biography of Khalid ibn Al-Walid from a military point of view for example was only done in the 20th century and by a Pakistani general.

 

Certainly! I've just finished reading Paul Kennedy's "the arab conquests" and would have to agree with you - some of the military commanders of Persia were not that good, but I recall that the conquerers of Egypt - Amr - and Spain - Tariq - were also brilliant commanders, especially Amr's campaigns in the Mahbreb! However, we should consider the situation - in Egypt, when Heraclius deposed Phorsas, he used most of the troops in Egypt and never sent a garrison back - thus, the Byzantine governor of Alexandria pretty much gave in without a fight, despite the fact that Amr had less than 10'000 men! Also, Rodrigo - the last visigothic king of Spain - wasn't much of a match when it came to Tariq. Also, if you're up to c.850, I'd have to include Harun Al Rashid who captured Cyprus from the Byzantines and caught the attentions of Charglemaine (who you should also consider - his defeat of Decimus at c.776 is brilliant - no wonder the pope wanted to crown him, and probably Charles the fat, who managed to unify his empire for a short time!), and certainly the first Abbasid Caliph Al-Saffas, who defeated the Tang dynasty decisively at Talas in 751, and the last Ummayad king Marwan II at the river Zab in c.730.