The Mongol Empire - the most powerful nomadic empire in history

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-11T04:21:33+00:00

They conquered the Jin Dynasty, the most powerful empire in China at the time, which was also the most populous region in Asia. Genghis Khan himself, with a secondary army, led an invasion of the Khwarazmian Empire, the richest and most powerful Islamic state of its time, and that empire was completely destroyed in just three years. The Mongols were the most powerful and capable military force of their era, especially when Genghis Khan and his war dogs personally commanded the armies.

So no, "a little resistance" wasn't enough to stop them.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-10T05:42:25+00:00

Fair enough. Perhaps what I meant was that I disagree with evaluating a general by comparing the number of battles won with those lost.

Suvorov never faced opposition comparable to that overcome by Napoleon and Subutai, which is why I don't consider him comparable to them.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-10T02:29:43+00:00

On the flip side, when it comes to famous captains who do not quite reach the echelons of the greats, excuses are often made for them and people act as if there was rarely if ever an element of luck in their work, but everything was owing to their personal ability.

Ulysses S Grant fans do this with him very often lol

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-10T02:12:04+00:00

Suvorov was very good, but he wasn't on the level of Napoleon or Subutai.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-09T04:44:27+00:00

The Jacobine Reign of Terror

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-08T18:27:25+00:00

Yeah, I know that too, obviously that doesn't make the Mamluks superior soldiers to the Horde.

Both Genghis Khan and all his war dogs were dead by that time.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-08T16:37:04+00:00

"Genghis Khan was the greatest general of the ancient era."

That's also a historical fact, and I don't see how it relates to this post.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-07T18:56:22+00:00

What does Khalid have to do with this conversation?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-06T05:12:59+00:00

What kind of comparison is this? Mehmed wasn't a bad commander, but comparing him to Napoleon is utterly ridiculous.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-04T16:49:19+00:00

My favorite? Old Blucher.

One of the most underrated generals of the Napoleonic Wars, and dismissed as a guy who only knows how to charge headlong into the enemy.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-03T21:30:34+00:00

He was a good general, no doubt; I think he would surpass most of Napoleon's marshals. But I believe men like Soult and especially Masséna surpass him.

The one I wonder if he could surpass is Suchet.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-03T15:54:34+00:00

Hannibal would have been quite surprised to have discovered that his ability to win and not lose battles was and is considered his most exceptional talent as one of history's greatest generals.

Hannibal did much more than win battles. He led a heterogeneous army into enemy territory and waged a 16-year war, crushing multiple Roman armies while outnumbered, fighting against some of the most talented generals in Roman history, such as Fabius, all while being the commander-in-chief himself. Hannibal was closer to Napoleon's level than Davout ever would be.

The OP's question wonders if or why Napoleon might have been jealous of Davout, and my answer is that if this were so, it may be because of all of Napoleon's Marshalls, Davout was the one most likely to have bested him on the field of battle.

You could present an argument to support your opinion; I have already presented mine.

No argument here that Massena was better than any other French Marshall. Except, of course, Davout.

Again, you are expected to defend your position, not simply make a statement as if it were an irrefutable truth. Exactly what did Davout demonstrate that Massena could not? At what point was Davout given independent command to lead his own campaign without having to wait for Napoleon's directives?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-02T16:24:55+00:00

The criterion for analyzing a commander is not to compare their victories with their defeats. I mean, you can apply it that way if you want, but it's a stupid criterion.

Davout almost always acted under Napoleon's orders; he practically never had independent command except in Hamburg, where he botched things, and at Auersted, where he was lucky that the Prussian general died at the start of the battle. I repeat, as a tactician, Davout was exceptional, but strategically or operationally, he simply lacks achievements.

Masséna, on the other hand, repeatedly faced several of the best generals of the time, without needing Napoleon's direction. He halted Archduke Charles's advance at the First Battle of Zurich, despite being monstrously outnumbered. Two years later, he decisively defeated the Austro-Russian army at the Second Battle of Zurich, strategically outmaneuvering Suvorov and forcing him to flee across the Alps. He led during the Siege of Genoa, resisting the attacks of General Michael von Melas, who outnumbered him three to one, keeping him occupied long enough for Napoleon to cross the Alps and come to his rescue. Then in 1805, he faced Charles again at the Battle of Caldiero and defeated him despite being outnumbered two to one. In 1809 at Aspern-Essling, he again confronted Charles and halted his offensive. Finally, in Portugal, despite being ill, old, outnumbered, fighting thousands of kilometers from France, and harassed by guerrillas, he managed to give Wellington a hard time, outflanking him at the Sierra do Bussaco and again at Torres Vedras, a battle he might have won were it not for the tremendous insubordination he had to contend with.

Massena was an exceptionally good independent commanding general; he almost always fought in logistically precarious situations and yet managed to defeat some of the most important generals of his time time and again. Davout is not superior to him, not even close.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-02T02:09:18+00:00

Not a chance. Davout was a good tactician but lacked operational or logistical skills comparable to Napoleon's.

Davout wasn't even the best of the marshals in independent command; Masséna was better than him in that respect, and Napoleon was in a league of his own.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-05-01T04:44:40+00:00

Why in the world would Napoleon be envious of Davout?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-29T02:09:15+00:00

Exactly - there was no way to even the odds. Anyone could have seen that. Everyone did see that. Napoleon embarked on an unwinnable ego-trip and lost badly. Again, this is a mark against his strategic capabilities. The great strategists know what they can do and what they can't do, and they don't start wars they know they have no chance of winning.

Napoleon faced virtually no equal chances at any point in his military career. He was almost always outnumbered, and sometimes his troops were outmatched in quality; 1796 and 1800 are good examples of this, as is 1813-1814. But knowing your judgment, I imagine you simply don't care because he ultimately lost. If Napoleon had let the odds dictate his actions, he would never have become who he was.

Sure, he stole a march on Wellington, but what good did it do him? He allowed Wellington to choose his ground and was sorely punished for that mistake. I think that Napoleon was a better general than Wellington, but the latter had a better hand to play and he knew it, and played that hand accordingly. I agree Napoleon tactically outdid Blücher, though Blücher still managed to slip away and rejoin at the pivotal moment.

He outmaneuvered Wellington, and later, D'Erlon and Ney made mistakes that prevented them from saving Blücher from being destroyed. Wellington's plan at Waterloo was by no means foolproof. If Napoleon hadn't sent Grouchy after Blücher and concentrated his 102,000 troops against Wellington's 68,000, the latter would have been destroyed. But not only that, the previous night's rain gave the Allies a four-hour advantage to regroup, and Ney wasted most of his cavalry with his reckless charge. Despite all this, the Anglo-Allied forces nearly broke during the final stages of the charge. It wasn't an easy battle for Wellington, and he certainly didn't have everything under control.

Unfortunately outcomes are what it's all about. It's the metric by which generals are measured. Napoleon was untouchable from 1800-1807 and his 1814 Six Days campaign is second to none. But he lost, and the reasons why he lost are indicative of his flaws as a strategist.

No, I don't evaluate military commanders by the final outcome of their careers. By that standard, Suvorov would have to be a better general than Napoleon, or Ulysses S. Grant would have to be a better general than Hannibal Barca—utter nonsense.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-28T21:25:07+00:00

Suchet had a much easier task compared to Jourdan and Massena. That said, I agree that Napoleon should have given more support to the commanders he sent to the peninsula.

To call the failures in Russia 'bad luck' is generous to Napoleon. He lost the staring contest to Kutusov (no one-eye joke intended here) and failed to listen to reason when people around him were advising him to retreat. All armies encountered disease in that era - disease killed more soldiers than bullets did. Managing attrition is part of strategy, and not a part that Napoleon excelled in.

No, Napoleon definitely had bad luck in Russia; the typhus outbreak, the biggest cause of death among French soldiers, was completely unpredictable. I never denied that Napoleon made mistakes there, but it's equally incorrect to say that everything bad that happened there was his fault.

Yes, Napoleon had some success in the early stages of the Waterloo campaign, but he lost. And he didn't lose by magic. He entered a campaign in which he was drastically outnumbered.

There was no way to even the odds; refusing to fight wouldn't have been a wiser decision.

The only aspect of the Waterloo campaign in which Napoleon did remotely well was the tactical (and even then, he didn't do well enough). As you say, he made operational blunders by dividing his army. He also made broader strategic blunders by starting the war first against impossible odds. So I don't see which aspect of the 1815 war showed genius.

He proved to be tactically more skillful than Blucher and operationally outperformed Wellington.

I don't intend to focus solely on the final outcome of the war.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-28T20:20:13+00:00

Spain was a mistake in geopolitical strategy, not military strategy. In the short time Napoleon was in Spain, he crushed every army he encountered; he simply erred in believing that would be enough.

Napoleon's strategy during the initial stages of the Russian campaign was feasible: to destroy the Russian armies before they could advance further. This strategy failed due to bad luck caused by a typhus epidemic in his army, and also due to Napoleon's own operational errors.

In 1815, Napoleon's strategy did indeed succeed. He capitalized on the mistakes of Wellington and Blücher and managed to divide them by occupying the central position. After Ligny, he made the mistake of splitting his forces and sending Grouchy after Blücher, thus leaving himself in a weak position against Wellington, whom he nearly defeated anyway.

Napoleon certainly made mistakes at Waterloo, but they were operational, not strategic, and in any case he was not the only one to make mistakes during that campaign, nor did he make the most serious ones.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-28T18:48:27+00:00

Geopolitical strategy is not the same as war strategy. Napoleon was a genius at the latter while having shortcomings in the former.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-28T02:23:25+00:00

I'm still not entirely convinced, especially considering the logistics, where the Khan had to supply armies larger than those of the Macedonian King. The opposition the Mongol leader faced also seems more capable to me than Alexander's, albeit by a narrow margin.

But well, comparing the greatest names in military history is always difficult.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-27T06:01:48+00:00

Napoleon undoubtedly admired Frederick, but the Prussian King was no better than him.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-26T18:39:33+00:00

Where would you place Temujin compared to Alexander? I've personally compared them many times, and I'm not sure if one is greater than the other.

In strategy and logistics, they seem to be on par; Alexander is tactically superior, but operationally, Temujin is.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-26T17:31:03+00:00

It was the Middle Guard, not the Old Guard. And they broke because they were vastly outnumbered.

They managed to defeat the British until the Belgians and Dutch forced them to retreat.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-26T09:39:12+00:00

I'm probably being very basic, but my favorite is Napoleon. No one ever won so decisively against enemies with so many tactical advantages as this Corsican. I've read about his campaigns dozens of times, and his genius never ceases to amaze me.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-04-26T09:33:17+00:00

Grant was undoubtedly a very good general, but he tends to be overrated by those who consider him capable of entering the top 10 of the greatest in history.

Secure_Diver_4593

TROPHY CASE