Of course every conquerer makes mistakes the difference however lies in the mistakes they made. When Hitler invaded Germany his generals told him to do one thing he as an idiot who believed a sergeant could command army's better then trained officers refused to listen and did things differently. He made a mistake he could have seen coming and many did. And in the end his generals were right.
Napoleon should have known as well and his mistake was moving into a land he could have known about without informing himself well enough and without knowing the risks fully. He paid the price, he was still brilliant though but I must say that mistake was one he should not have and easily could not have made and that in my opinion takes him away from the greatest conquerers ever. Still damned good, but not the greatest.
Alexander the Great failed when traversing difficult Persian terrain. Caesar had not taken proper account of the Channel's weather and so when he incorrectly beached and moored his transports many of them were flailed about and were badly damaged or sunk as they were flung into one another. Khan wasted much of the potential resources of his empire via taxation by pillaging and looting many of their rich cities. These are all significant mistakes. The first two meant the loss the conquerors' army, just like Napoleon. Everyone will make egregious mistakes in the end, it's just a matter of time. Therefore, the best way to measure a conqueror's ability is to see how much they had to achieve to reach their highest peak of glory. Napoleon, had to survive two 3-pronged attacks from Russia, Austria and Prussia with the monetary backing of the entire British economy. Pretty impressive. Khan got China, Caesar got France, Alexander the Great got the Persians. Great for them.
Khan got China most of the Middle East and Eastern Europe, but not really the point...
Alexander when moving through especially things like India where he lost his real power had no knowledge of the terrain and could not have had it either. He was moving through unknown land, and yet still he won battles there. His biggest mistake was his retreat, his move home. Which was quite frankly when the war was over.
Caesar also could not have known the climate on the other side, well he could have known a few things but nothing much. The allies when they landed on Normandy took months to prepare collecting as much as they could from the soil on the beaches to weather charts of the last years and predict everything they could. Caesar did not have that ability.
Napoleon however did have the chance to know what was in Russia, making the mistakes is not really what is important. Why you made the mistakes and how much you could have done to prevent it is what matters. Napoleon was absolutely brilliant but he screwed up with Russia something that he could have prevented.
Lets remember that no on had to tried to take out Russia like Napoleon did before. There wasn't any record of how badly the russian winter would treat enemy soldiers. Much like Caesar and Alexander, Napoleon lacked a lot information himself.
Can't think of any other that wanted to conquer Russia however there were Russians in their lands there were plenty of people that had gone to Russia and trade was going on. Meaning quite simply he could have known if he took any effort. Caesar and Alexander would have had a far harder time to do so.
Of course Napoleon his mistake is not so severe that he's not a brilliant commander all the same but I still wouldn't rate him as the best.
I respect your opinion, but I think your arguments are lame. Even if Napoleon had lived in Russia for a portion of his life, he would not know the rates of which attrition would kill off an enemy army.
No he wouldn't have known exactly, but he could have known about the incredibly strong winters there and he could have prepared better for it. The result may not have been very different or perhaps it would have been and perhaps he would have made it.
Registered: May 2006
Location: Beverly Hills, California
The Russians obviously knew there own territory better than any other peoples. So they in fact knew that they would have the upper hand when a European invader came. They knew exactly how the weather and climate would be. They knew exactly which crops or fertile lands to destroy as well, if it came apparent that they were being invaded. Since the days of Peter The Great, the Russians have been prepared for a European invader, since they themselves, Invaded, and built there new capital which in fact "taunted" all of Europe.
I voted "other" since my vote goes to Sargon the Great.
He didn't conquer near as much land as anyone listed, but at the time; he literally conquered all of the known world. If there were people there, or if it had a use, and it was known to exist in the first place; he took it.
He was also the first to boast having a standing army, which was close to 5400 men (huge for the time period; since this was VERY early on in civilization). He was an outright dick and a merciless tyrant, but he *was* good at conquering land.
__________________
Images: Dr. Steel, photographs by Chad Michael Ward
few questions here as I had a hard time remembering the name in the first place, let alone stand know much about him.
But if he conquered that much, with such a small force did he really even have any opposition? Did he fight wars, or did he just march into towns kill the people and then leave?
Not like it really matters we are talking about greatest conquerer not greatest general, but still.... He doesn't sound like a brilliant general to me. How could he be if he never faced any standing army's.
For the time, the force wasn't all that small. Today it's downright pitiful, but this was incredibly early on in terms of human history. So 5400 then would probably be proportionate to tens of thousands now. Also, he was the creator of the first [known] empire in history, in Mesopotamia.
He *did* have to fight for it, he didn't just walk in with an escort and tell people they were under his rule. All a standing army is nothing more than an army that exists year-round. If there's no fighting to be done, it just spends its time doing things like training. A nation without a standing army is not a defenseless nation; in all likelihood there would be numerous militias or other fighting forces that would be summoned up when the need arose.
For example, during the middle ages most of Europe did not have a standing army. After all, the men were needed to work the fields and raise food. Service was mandatory, but not in the same system as a modern-day draft. You would serve ____ days each year, usually after harvests so there were still workers to grow / raise food, then get to go home. Which is why for the longest time, almost every war in Europe during the time period was fought seasonally.
If you're interested in reading up, I can PM you a link. Apparently there's a feature in place that prevents me from posting one >.<
__________________
Images: Dr. Steel, photographs by Chad Michael Ward
and yeah I realize there would be some things to defend themselves with, but it just doesn't really sound all that impressive. This is probably just ignorance speaking though.
Jan 4th, 2007 08:48 PM
