In one corner: Attila, “scourge of God,” plus a band of 50,000 Huns in prime fighting shape.
In the other corner: Genghis Khan, plus 5 tumen (50,000) Mongols in prime fighting shape.
The battlefield, and the prize: the whole of Eastern Europe. Two barbarain hordes enter, one barbarian horde leaves. There’s no time limit, and no real help or hindrance from native populations. Each leader is at his physical and mental prime.
Which fearsome fighting force can conquer the other and establish the dominant empire? Which leader is the greater strategic and tactical genius? Does Attila face a significant disadvantage because his battle technology comes from the 400s compared to Genghis Khan’s 1200s tech?
I confess that my knowledge of either combatant consists of what’s in those Wikipedia articles. That said, my money’s on Khan. Anyone with more knowledge want to chime in with an opinion?
Mr. we could use a man like Ghengis Khan today, those were the days.
Genghis killed his hald brother at age 12, then had his wife kidnapped shortly after they were married. Never bet against a man who has been kicked around like that, then goes on to conquer more then the romans did.
Mediaevalist checking in…wee St Genevieve of Paris was able to turn Attila away from the city, when prior he’d swept through and sacked, pillaged, burnt, shopped in, every other city he’d set his sights on…(Vita Genovefae Virginia Pariensis, capp. 12,* MGH Script Rer Merovinigicarum* III, 219. ) He was under five feet tall and allegedly died on his wedding night after servicing his bride.
Just a few possible weaknesses or vulnerabilities to consider (although not much is known about him, the main text being Jordanes’ epitomy…
Genghis Khan, easily. Attila was an intelligent man, damn fine politician and an at least competent warchief, but he wasn’t a military genius and his forces never defeated a first-class army in the field. Genghis was at the very least a superb organizer and the tactical and strategic brilliance of his two top commanders aside, his far more disciplined army would have cut the Hunnish horde to shreds. Probably :).
Ahhh, now there’s a head-scratcher. I have an opinion, but modesty forbids :D.
Seriously, I’m not sure of their respective tactical abilities on the battlefield - Timur might have a slight speculative edge, just because he won his major victories significantly on his own merits, whereas Genghis had the advantage of having a couple of true geniuses on his staff. But I’m betting the Mongol Imperial Army at its mature height was better than any other steppe-style army that came before or after, including Tamerlane’s. This was in part the iron discipline Genghis instilled, but even more that he successfully broke up and re-combined traditional tribal groups and promoted/demoted on merit ( within limits ) to create a professional ( or at least near-professional ) army with an extremely high esprit-de-corps. Timur’s army on the other hand was, like virtually all others of its ilk, an amalgam of various semi-autonomous tribal levies. No matter how effective of a weapon it was, it was almost certainly less so as a whole than the classic Imperial Army.
I would vote for Ghengis Khan by all means.
He was on top of all his other qualities also more cruel and ruthless then the others (who evidently had their shares of this particular gift) and knew how to use that skill effectively.
Most people think of Genghis Khan as just another steppe warlord who got lucky and the Mongols as a bunch of barbarians. But in fact, Genghis Khan built a very modern organized army. He understood the values of military intelligence, logistics, manueverability, communications, organizational breakdown, and equipment better than any of the men he fought against. In many ways, Genghis Khan wasn’t a classical general like Attila or Alexander, he was a modern general like Gustavus Adolphus or Napoleon.
Wasn’t Danny Kaye a Major Modern General? The very model of a major modern general, no less?
I think a better comparison would be Genghis vs. Alexander. Both thought nothing of completely destroying a city that defied them (and killing or enslaving all the people) but both also respected a good fight and would treat an honorable enemy with honor. Both also left the conquered people more or less alone–a Greek or Mongol governor was put in charge and taxes were paid, but local goverence, culture and religion were left along–except if it actively fought against Genghis or Alexander (Alexander actually became quite smitten with the Persian culture, must to the dismay of his Greek generals).
Like Alexander (and later, Augustus Ceasar), Genghis was looking for a world empire in part to bring about peace. Oh, he thought Mongol were superior to all other peoples and therefore had the right to rule, but so did the Greeks and the Romans. He helped open European eyes to China and trade routes and was in fact very concerned about establishing trade throughout the empire. He died relatively early in the conquest, but it speaks to his planning that his heirs were able to continue both the conquest and in keeping the empire together.
For a different take on Genghis, take a look at Genghis Khan and the Making of the Modern World by JackWeatherford. I’ve only read part of it, and although Weatherford may go a bit overboard in trying to make-over Genghis Khan’s reputation, it is a good book.
Don’t forget that Gengis had a simply awesome mounted force. They had supurb communication abilities as well.
I’ll Mongol hordes for $50 Alex. Speaking of Mongol hordes, I was in a bar in Beijing the other day where there were Mongol whore’ds. Seriously, about 20 real rough looking ladies from outer Mongolia. If these are the soft modern decendants, you don’t want to even think about how bad assed Gengis was.
