The greatest general ever born? or a tyrant who got lucky? Only thing people seem to agree is that he built the biggest empire ever, with the most powerful army at that time.
2007-03-13 23:52:05 · 5 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He was a great military commander and I disagree with the answer above. He didnt always have the numerical advantages and in most ocassions, he was heavily outnumbered.(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_the_Kalka_River), it was his tactics that led him to victory.
He was ruthless, but not lucky. You dont become the lord of the largest contiguous empire by being lucky, it was sheer skill, military audacity and planning.
Cannot say that he was the greatest, that should go to Alexander the Great or Hannibal Barca.
****************************************
Lipsiot, what about the attack on Khwarezmia? One of the greatest rear guard action ever, marching through the desert? As I said, he did not have the greatest army, but he manipulated the battle for his advantage. Thats the mark of a great leader, a great commander!
Max_Power, the great khan never attempted to invade Japan. I believe, Kublai Khan, the great grandson, did that and lost. And I would say that the ability of the general to strike "where not suspected of posing a threat" is what makes a great general. A great general wont feed his troops into the place where the opponents are waiting. Terrain and mobility are factors that can be used in warfare.
And I dont argue on his tyranny. I have little respect for rapists, but that wont blind me to his acheivements in battle and that was what the quesion about. And also not that I said Great, not greatest.
2007-03-14 00:38:28 · answer #1 · answered by Maranello 2 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i don't think that the Great Khan was the greatest general in history. He was, according to all accounts a tyrant. lets not put him on a pedestal with great democratic or non-tyranical leaders....
The reasons he had so much success were:
1 - The Great Horde were a completely mobile force
2 - They attacked at a time of great weakness for all European and Asia-minor nations/empires
3 - they carried diseases that weakened enemies.
4 - the came from an area that was not suspected of posing a threat and thus caught everyone by surprise.
Essentially i think that he simply go lucky. Yes he had some times of being a great general - but lets take Japan; failed with THAT invasion and a GREAT general would not have failed. a Great general would've won or not even wasted the resources.
Anyhos - hope that helps....
2007-03-14 08:32:27 · answer #2 · answered by max power 3 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Certainly not the greatest general - that would be Alexander or Napoleon who both won battles where they were vastly outnumbered, whereas Genghis had a huge army at his disposal.
Certainly a tyrant, but I don't think luck had too much to do with his success.
Not the biggest empire ever either - the British Empire held more land space and a larger population.
He certainly had the most powerful army of the time and I would say that he was probably a charismatic and ruthless leader. He won the admiration of his men in battle, so he was a brave man, and he controlled the second largest empire ever, so he was obviously an astute administrator as well. So ultimately, a very clever man who made the best of the exceptional resources he found at his disposal.
*********************************************************************
My point, Nimisha, was that although Genghis' opponents often had larger armies at their disposal, they often misused them or split them up so that Genghis faced only a fraction of the army and therefore had numerical advantage. At the battle of the Kalka River, for example, he faced odds of 2 to 1, but the Rus only committed a tenth of their number to the battle and therefore the odds turned to 5 to 1 in Genghis' favour.
**************************************************************
Good point Nimisha..............I concede !
2007-03-14 07:04:43 · answer #3 · answered by the_lipsiot 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
An individual who was lucky to conquer. The fellow didn't know, how to rule. Only a plunderer who made fortune by his force. He killed enough citizens to be called a ruthless fellow ever born on this land. Now Bush of USA has surpassed him.
2007-03-14 07:02:36 · answer #4 · answered by Hafeez 3 · 0⤊ 4⤋
He was a military genius of all time
2007-03-14 07:00:33 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋