Author |
Share Topic Topic Search Topic Options
|
Exarchus
General
Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Topic: Who is the greatest military leader of the medieval period? Posted: 23-Dec-2005 at 16:12 |
Originally posted by Byzan
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... |
But he wasn't undefeated wasn't he? He conquered England but couldn't defeat Scotland and also suffered setbacks in France.
|
Vae victis!
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
demon
Chieftain
Joined: 03-Aug-2004
Location: Brazil
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1185
|
Quote Reply
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..
|
|
Heraclius
Chieftain
Joined: 28-Jun-2005
Location: England
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 1231
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 26-Dec-2005 at 21:55 |
^^^ Theres more than a few members on this site that would *fiercely* dispute the size, importance of the *battle* of tours and would even dispute if it was a battle at all, if it even happened.
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.
|
|
Constantine XI
Suspended
Suspended
Joined: 01-May-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 5711
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Maju
King
Joined: 14-Jul-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 6565
|
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
Mosquito
Caliph
Suspended
Joined: 05-Aug-2004
Location: Sarmatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2537
|
Quote Reply
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
|
"I am a pure-blooded Polish nobleman, without a single drop of bad blood, certainly not German blood" - Friedrich Nietzsche
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
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 - Jan Zizka.
Edited by Dharmagape
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
Spartakus
Tsar
terörist
Joined: 22-Nov-2004
Location: Greece/Hellas
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 4489
|
Quote Reply
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)
|
|
Raider
General
Joined: 06-Jun-2005
Location: Hungary
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 804
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 27-Feb-2006 at 02:54 |
Originally posted by Dharmagape
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 - Jan Zizka. |
As far as I know he didn't fought at Grunwald (Its a widely prevalent misbelief), but I agree he was an exceptional general and hussites revolutionized infantry warfare.
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
|
Dampier
Colonel
Joined: 04-Feb-2006
Location: United Kingdom
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 749
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 05-Mar-2006 at 16:43 |
Originally posted by Raider
Originally posted by Dharmagape
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 - Jan Zizka. | As far as I know he didn't fought at Grunwald (Its a widely prevalent misbelief), but I agree he was an exceptional general and hussites revolutionized infantry warfare. |
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!). Or william the Conqueror who defeated his first enemy (who was superior in damn near everything) at age 16.
|
|
|
Maljkovic
Earl
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
Quote Reply
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
|
|
Travis Congleton
Shogun
Joined: 18-Aug-2005
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 200
|
Quote Reply
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.
|
|
Guests
Guest
|
Quote Reply
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.
Edited by Dharmagape
|
|
Maljkovic
Earl
Joined: 27-Feb-2006
Location: Croatia
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 294
|
Quote Reply
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!
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 13:56 |
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.
|
|
|
Emperor Barbarossa
Caliph
Joined: 15-Jul-2005
Location: Pittsburgh, USA
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 2888
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:01 |
Originally posted by Dampier
Originally posted by Raider
Originally posted by Dharmagape
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 - Jan Zizka. | As far as I know he didn't fought at Grunwald (Its a widely prevalent misbelief), but I agree he was an exceptional general and hussites revolutionized infantry warfare. |
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!). Or william the Conqueror who defeated his first enemy (who was superior in damn near everything) at age 16. |
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.
|
|
|
Exarchus
General
Joined: 18-Jan-2005
Location: France
Online Status: Offline
Posts: 760
|
Quote Reply
Posted: 12-Mar-2006 at 14:45 |
Originally posted by Constantine XI
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.
|
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!
|
|