I was about to say that I was surprised that on AF, no one had mentioned the number of people with GK’s genetic material in them, but then I saw Zidhai did say that.
I think AFers have made the strongest case for Napoleon, because there really does seem to be some positive aspects of his legacy there. (EDIT: While I was writing this, STL made some interesting points about GK as a ruler vs as a conqueror. Conquest is bloody business everywhere, but I have to say the Mongols seemed especially horrific from everything I’ve read, so I’d rather be Napoleon than Gengis, personally).
Fom Napoleon, we learned one important thing: Don’t invade Russia if you’re not prepared for a long winter. Hitler could have benefitted from that lesson (though Operation Barbarosa did start on the Summer Solstice).
Agreed that Hitler was an excellent politician (from the point of view of getting what he wanted out of politics), but most historiographies I’ve read suggest that every military decision that he personally decided was a disaster. One might say that this shows he was a horrible military mind, but it’s also likely that military decisions only came to him when they were already very difficult choices (that’s what happens when you’re at the top of a bureaucracy - any easy or clear decision gets handled further down in the chain). But if he insisted on overriding military advice, then that does seem to indicate a bad military mind (and I think that’s in fact what he did in many cases).
There’s also a case to be made for Constantine the Great, who basically made two decisions, either one of which would lead to 1000+ year legacy: 1) moving the Roman capital to Byzantium (after fighting - initially from Britannia - to conquer the right to be Emperor), and 2) legalizing Christianity. Not only that, but he died an old man, in power, not murdered by anyone, which is a plus. But Constantine didn’t necessarily conquer new territory. He simply eliminated competitors to an existing one.
I’ll admit that I’m no scholar of history, so I don’t know anything about the people that GK conquered. But when Alexander the Great conquered the world, those people had been fighting each other for a long time. If I’m not mistaken, he had to fight the Persian Empire. (You know, the guy from 300 with five dozen face piercings?)
Were GK’s conquests were more “farmers and small villages”? Did he ever fight anybody with real substance?
^^Well, he kicked the shit out of the Chinese against far larger numbers. One example below. Keep in mind, GK victories aren’t as “glorious” as some other conquerers because GK was using far superior technology (i.e. he knew how to use cavalry in such a way his tactics are still studied today). Others, like the Chinese, rode around on horses but really had no idea what they were doing. It’s not that he didn’t conquer stong nations/empires, it’s that he did it with relatively little effort.
Edit: GK was also one of the first rulers to insist on diplomatic immunity so peaceful discussions between rival states could take place even in times of war. The above battle was actually a result of the Chinese killing a Mongol diplomat. GK wasn’t having any of that so he nearly destroy the Jin Dynasty. That’s pretty awesome.
Darn, the question was, who would you hire to take over the world.
Both Alexander the Great and Gengis Khan were awesome conquerors, and Alexander the Great did some amazing things when he had inferior numbers. But his empire fell apart pretty much as soon as he died.
Gengis’ was also divided, but seems to have maintained more unity as a cohesive unit in the aftermath, which allowed for some internal progress. It seems that GK had things set up a bit better to last.
Both were master tactitians for the technologies at their disposal Phalanxes for Alexander and Mounted Archers for Gengis. Often times the brilliance of a military mind depends on the technology for their time and the type of battlefields used, plus the weaknesses of the opposing side’s tactics, which change from period to period. Given that, part of me wonders if we should consider Patton.
Also, conquering and governing are two different things. If we are talking about sheer ability to take land, Hitler (or at least his generals) and Napoleon have to be in the mix. But if it’s about holding that territory and governing it, it looks like GK is the winner of those mentioned, and I don’t know who else would qualify, except perhaps a figure from Chinese history I don’t know as much about.
I don’t know if you can compare Napoleon to GK. Napoleon came much later and Europe was realtively “civilized” by then compared to the world GK lived in, so it seems natural that there would be more significant developments to come out of his influence (society was far more advanced). If we’re talking about “just win, baby” style conquest, it’s GK and I don’t think anyone else is even close.
Sweep is right, the level of GK dominance is unrivaled. He was cutting through huge armies like butter.
The more interesting question would be how you factor Rome into the equation since Rome was built over a much longer time period with no one specific general responsible for all the conquest, but was extremely dominant and had many brilliant generals who under other circumstances could be in this discussion apples/apples IMO.
What would GK do today though? Technology has made his mind irrelevant. Whereas soft power conquerors are much more effective in today’s world. If GK came back from the dead, one drone strike and he’s out. Napoleon could have half of Europe conquered before anyone knew what happened.
Alexander’s empire doesn’t overlap with the Roman Empire much and was conquered about 300 years before Rome declared itself an Empire, and about 200 years before the Romans appeared on the scene as an expanding power in that region. Basically the parts that overlapped were Greece, Egypt, the Levant, and Judea. The bulk of the land in Alexander’s Empire was Persia up to the Indus River, and Persia/Parthia/Sassinia was never wholely conquered by the Romans (or even mostly conquered).
Even Greece, Egypt, the Levant and Judea had to be conquered as separate kingdoms. It’s not like the Romans captured one capital and got to rule everything as a consequence.
An example: Putin just seized a ton of land in Ukraine not due to military power or strategy, but by having Merkel and Hollande’s balls in an economic vice. That’s how you gain territory today. Not by military force alone.
It does seem that what all three conquerors (Alexander, Gengis, and Napoleon) seemed to manage that gave them an advantage in their historical eras were superior logistics that allowed them to appear in force faster than their adversaries.
It’s not just marhsalling an attacking force, but keeping them fed. Napoleon is famous for having said “An army marches on its stomach.” He had apparently developed better logistics so that his army could show up several days before his opponents expected them (e.g. Austerlitz).
In Gengis’ case, the armies on horseback were able to arrive even before villages had heard that their neighbors were sacked.
Blitzkreig was also a logistic innovation using tanks and aircraft that had people’s jaws dropping.
I’m less sure of Alexander on this, but my understanding is that the speed with which his armies expanded was also impressive for its time. After all, he died at age 33, in control of his empire, which means that he’d basically conquered all of that in 10 years.
So the logistics element seems key. I would think that modern warfare would use new technologies including disruption of enemy logistics and computers and communication and get enemy forces to start shooting at each other rather than invaders, etc… None of that is particularly controversial today, but it indicates the kind of thinking that we would want to look for in a modern Gengis/Alexander/Napoelon.
Alexander’s army only really got bogged down when they outstripped their supply chain and ended up in far flung places like India. That is an absurd supply chain by even modern standards, let alone antiquity.
I think part of it was that his armies had been marching for years and years and wanted to get some time to be with their families, so he couldn’t push them farther. However it’s also true that he did take some time in Persia to consolidate his rule, so the logistics across places like Afghanistan were undoubtedly difficult and probably why he wasn’t actually able to take much of India after getting to the Indus river.
Dude, come on. That’s completely asinine. While we’re at it, we could debate whether Steve Jobs would still be considered a creative mastermind if he was born 100 years later. Or, would Buffet still have the same success if he started out today? I’m of the opinion that great minds are time agnostic. Jobs would still find a way to revolutionize whatever the hell is going on in 100 years. Buffet would still find value if he started investing today. And GK would still be a masterful general (as would Napoleon).
But, both GK and Napoleon would have to evolve different styles today, obviously. Every military style pre-Vietnam is already outdated. WWII won’t ever happen again. Line that many guys up on a battlefield and we’d simply nuke them. I’d still wager both GK and Napoleon would be successful generals if born today though.
The answer is no but it’s a circular question since he shaped so much of the investment philosophy applied today. Without WB the market would be much less efficient today (thanks, jackass).