Greatest Military Leader elimination game (game thread)

Not sure I buy this. According to quick Googling, Alexander died in 323 BC and the successor states lasted another 200-300 years (the “Hellenistic Period”).

Caesar died in 44 BC and the imperial system petered out in 476 AD (to take one generally-accepted date)…another 520 years.

Genghis perished in 1227 and the successor states fared as follows:

[ul]
[li]Yuan dynasty in China (1279–1368) [/li]
[li]Chaghatay khanate in Central Asia (ca. 1227–1363)[/li]
[li]Golden Horde in southern Russia extending into Europe (ca. 1227–1502)[/li]
[li]Ilkhanid dynasty in Greater Iran (1256–1353)[/li][/ul]

With the exception of the Golden Horde, the longest-enduring successor state lasted 141 years. And if we include the Golden Horde we only see 275 years – very comparable to Alexander’s states lasting 200-300, and still not comparing well to Rome’s imperial system…and we’ve left the Eastern Roman Empire / Byzantium out of the calculations entirely. It is arguably less Caesar’s child than the Western Roman Empire, but it finally fell in 1453 – 1497 years after the infamous Ides.

The question is who was the greatest military leader, so a long-lasting dynasty isn’t strictly relevant.

My nomination for elimination is Alexander the Great. He was a flash in the pan.

One question for the supporters of Genghis: how good was he at not making war? How good was he at peace?

1 vote for Caesar, for elimination. Great as he was, he did not create the military system he used. Neither did Alex, but Alex used the system he inherited to even greater effect.

I’m looking for the Khan as winner. The Mongol nation was, essentially, his creation, though clearly enough it was patterned on many steppe empires that had gone before - but it was the last steppe empire to seriously contend with civilization, the creator of the closest thing yet to a world-dominating empire capable of tying east and west of the eurasian land-mass together from the centre. If only Ogedai Khan had not drunk himself to death when he did, they may have succeeded in watering their dirty ponies in the English Channel …

I contend that the Khan beats Julius because the nation & army was his own creation; he beats Alexander because the nation & army was his own creation, and his empire kept expanding under his successors … and both because the sheer scale of his achievement dwarfs both.

The empire of Alex basically fell apart into warring successor states dominated by Alex’s generals very soon after his death - while some of those states lasted a long time, the actual empire of Alex did not. In contrast, after the death of the Khan, some of the greatest achievements of the Mongols as an empire were still to come - conquest of the 'Rus and Sung, and the invasion of the West.

Really down to splitting hairs at this stage. I’ll vote against Alexander the Great, but any of the three would be worthy winners in my opinion.

The last major power of Genghisid lineage was probably Altan Khan who died in 1582. The last Genghisid successor state was the Crimean Khanate which lasted until 1783 ;).

But beyond that Malthus is correct - you’re not comparing like to like. Alexander’s dynasty had its defenders, but they were neutralized early in the Wars of the Diadochi and his line exterminated. The last centralizer of his successors was Antigonus the One-Eyed who perished in 301 at the battle of Ipsus. Thereafter the empire fully split into different geographically semi-stable entities and those were entirely the creation of the Diadochi.

The Mongol empire on the other hand underwent an orderly succession and remained an actively expanding unitary state through three successors to Genghis ( ending with the death of Mongke more than 30 years later ). Even then the illusion of a centralized empire remained for over a century, just with the title Great Khan disputed. While Alexander’s state contracted almost immediately ( rebellions in Greece and Seleucus bargaining away the Indus region for war-elephants ), Genghis’s massively expanded after his death.

Through the centuries Genghisid descent was the great legitimizer for would by Central Asian dynasts. Timur set up a puppet Genghisid prince to rule through. At one brief point a dynastic coup with the more prestigious Genghisid Giraids of the Crimea replacing the Ottoman dynasty was envisaged.

No, I think Genghis achieved far more for his successors than Alexander did. Alexander just opened the flood gates if you will - it was a profound moment, but far less systematic.

Depends on how you look at it. He was exceptionally good at incorporating nomadic or semi-nomadic societies and reintegrating them into the Mongol polity. The relatively painless absorptions of the Qara-Khitai state, from which the Mongols seem to have adopted some or much of their administrative machinery, is a case in point.

On the other hand he was a bit limited by his horizons. The Mongol economy was essentially extractive and in the long run arguably did considerable damage to areas like China and Khurasan ( in the short run the establishment of a massive contiguous empire greatly accelerated international overland trade, so it’s a complicated picture ) . More than that it would be accurate to say that he probably never considered a peace that was intended to be more than a temporary convenience. He’d accept peaceful submission and tribute and fiercely punish his own people that plundered without leave. But by god, you’d better really submit and pay that tribute.

As for votes, I think I’m going to stick with:

Alexander the Great

I won’t argue that hard for the superiority of Julius Caesar, because I don’t think it is an obvious choice of one over the other. Alexander was more explosive, more shatteringly successful, more of a phenomena, perhaps more natively brilliant from a young age.

Both fought a wide variety of opponents in disparate circumstances. Alexander from Greece to India, Julius from the English Channel to Egypt. Both commanded both sieges ( compare Alesia and Tyre ) and in field battles. Both commanded crack armies and both faced steep odds at times. Both also faced competent commanders in the likes of Titus Labienus and Memnon of Rhodes.

The difference for me comes down to character, sort of. Probably both were driven, narcissistic megalomaniacs at some level. The difference is that Caesar comes off as more sane and stable. This is important not in terms of likeability ( Caesar was a self-aggrandizing bastard ), but in terms of military leadership. Alexander drove his army to collapse and nearly extermination marching through a poorly chartered desert . Indeed he probably killed himself through sheer excess. If he didn’t he was poisoned and the fact that him being poisoned by his own officers is put forth as plausible ( and it is ), says something about his lack of self-control and his viciousness. That sort of behavior makes for a worse leader IMHO. Alexander too thoroughly bought into his own divine propaganda. JC was assassinated by a rival faction because he was too powerful and dangerous. If Alexander was, it was by his own and more because he was too unpredictable and crazy.

Both achieved much and Alex in some respects might have arguably achieved more, relatively speaking. But Julius presents himself as a more competent leader to my own biases.

Of the three, I think Julius Caesar dealt best with adversity - his capture by the pirates, his monetary debts, and the various rebellions and invasions.

For elimination, I’m sticking with:

Julius Caesar

I agree with those who see Temujin emerging triumphant at the close of battle.

I don’t. For all his success, Temujin was essentially a one-trick pony. Caesar had to deal with a wide variety of situations and fought both on land and at sea. Also, note that the stirrup hadn’t been invented in Caesar’s day, so one would expect Caesar’s conquests to be smaller.

As for “adversity”, there is no contest - at least, in how hard an adversity our man came back from - Temujin wins, hands down.

Alex was a prince. Enough said.

Caesar was an aristocrat. True, he was captured by pirates, but this wasn’t a huge hardship for him - his family could, and did, easily pay the ransom (the pirates said they’d ask for 20 talents - Caesar demanded that they ask for fifty!); during his time with the pirates, he apparently partied with them (in fact, allegedly he was so chummy with them that when he told them that after his ransom he, Caesar, would personally hunt them down and crucify them, they thought he was joking. Joke was on them! He did exactly that …)

Contrast with our friend Temujin. His dad was a tribal chief it was true, but when he was poisioned the tribe turfed Temujin’s mom and the kids out on the steppe to starve … they survived by shooting rats and the like to eat. Temujin’s first murder was of his own brother, over a fish. Later, he was captured and enslaved by tribal enemies, and made to wear a wooden yoke (he was freed by sympathetic tribesmen). He came back from being a beggar, slave and outcast.

Wow, I had no idea how much of Genghis Khan’s life they ripped off for CONAN THE BARBARIAN (the movie). I thought it was just the quote.

I recommend reading a good translation of the Secret History. Great stuff, equal to any modern fantasy novel (though it may be part fantasy itself … ).

From Wiki, Temujin’s early life:

Genghis Khan - Wikipedia

I was referring to his setbacks as an adult. Once Temujin got started he suffered no setbacks - not even his rebellious half-brother counted for much. Caesar had to contend with expulsion, ruin, rebellions, attacks from the Germans, and more.

Not entirely true - Temujin’s rise to power wasn’t without its setbacks. His lowest moment came at the hands of his former blood-bother, who defeated him in battle several times - only, not decisively.

Julius Caesar

I’d still take Zhukov over him, and possibly Alexander. Caesar’s main opposition, Pompey, was a chickenshit. I’m supposed to be impressed by a man who professed to defend the Republic and the rule of law, yet fled from a single legion to Greece? And I’m certainly not impressed by the time Caesar spent beating up and extorting a bunch of shaggy Gauls.

I don’t know a whole lot about Alexander and his campaigns, but given how large the Achaemenid Empire was and the troubles in Egypt, wasn’t the campaign up to Gaugamela a relative cakewalk for a veteran force like the Macedonians? The Russians, by comparison, were under near back-breaking pressure for 3 years, and Zhukov was Uncle Joe’s chief firefighter during that time, stopping the German advances at Leningrad and Moscow, crushing them at Stalingrad, back to Leningrad, to Bagration and Berlin, and he used what influence he had with Stalin to get him to back off just enough for the Red Army to develop some fine generals.

Captured by pirates is good! [/Princess Bride]

No wonder he reached the very top level! Killing rats is the first task of any fantasy hero’s career!

A legion is more than dangerous enough, when you haven’t a comparably combat-ready legion to oppose it with. Pompey didn’t. You can fault him for lack of foresight in having one prepared, if you like - and I don’t think many would seriously argue that Pompey himself (as opposed to some of his subordinate or allied generals) was the toughest opposition that Caesar faced. But to suggest that Pompey’s flight reflected cowardice is at odds with the historical record. And for that matter, Pompey gave Caesar more than enough scares of his own.

Too much caution in the face of an outlaw is a form of appeasement. If you’re going to be in charge of defending the existing order, the least you can do is stick around in your own lands and fight.

Unless that isn’t the most effective defense available. Pompey left Rome to try and raise additional legions, muster resources, and more effectively counter Caesar. That’s very much a strategic retreat, a defense-in-depth type of thing. Was it appeasement for Stalin to scorch and evacuate towns in front of Hitler’s troops? Or should he have done as Hitler did, and ordered his troops to stand and fight where they were, regardless of how badly they were outnumbered or the gains to be made by fighting retreats?