- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: Alexander the Great or ghengis khan
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:16 pm to crazy4lsu
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:16 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:my mistake idk why I had my dates so mixed up. It’s still over 1,000 years after Alexander and the point still stands. I understand he doesn’t do actual research but he’s still a guy most people would think has a pretty good grasp on history and doesn’t usually spew a bunch of nonsense unless he believes it
Charlemagne lived during the 700-800s
0
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:18 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
He pushed the horse nomads (which is what the mongols were) against a river using artillery.
No he didn’t. He used artillery to cover his infantry and horse as they crossed the river. The Scythian were on the OTHER side of the river, and could have fled before Alexander gotten across the river....
Are you sure you know how the battle you brought to the table played out???
quote:
but as they were galloping in circles around this force he marched in his other units to one side to attack them and had his infantry come in from a third to block any path out.
The fun thing about the mongols, is this force is a quarter of their actual force. AYYYYOHHHHHH you see the remaining 75% charging at you from the rear?
quote:
He was adaptable in all conditions and terrains. He would never be duped by ghengis khan
Whatever you say... you might wanna reread that battle though.... it seems you didn’t quite grasp what happened.
Eta: can you please space out your post too? That wall of text is horrendous.
This post was edited on 4/26/19 at 12:22 pm
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:25 pm to beerJeep
quote:you keep saying things like this as if Alexander would just let them do this? He was a great commander why are you acting like homer puke is leading the Macedonians?
he fun thing about the mongols, is this force is a quarter of their actual force. AYYYYOHHHHHH you see the remaining 75% charging at you from the rear?
you are right about the first part though I misread. He still used his infantry and archers to trap the soldiers. If Alexander has heard of his great horse though he won’t fall for throwing his main body of men against just a fraction of it.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:26 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
There are a lot of generals that didn't lose a battle. Tariq ibn Ziyad and Khalid ibn Walid never lost battles, nor did Tamerlane or Pepin the Short. None of those men get included in top 5 generals.
The Mongols had revolutionary organizational skills, something I'm skeptical Alexander could overcome. The Mongols also had a fairly hardy breed of horse, which could excel in multiple terrains, and allowed them to organize their army the way they did. Someone else mentioned the stirrup as a key innovation, as this allowed the battle to become 360 degrees, especially for archers, which is a tremendous advantage. Those are significant advantages against an army whose primary unit was the phalanx, which excelled in open territory.
The Mongols had revolutionary organizational skills, something I'm skeptical Alexander could overcome. The Mongols also had a fairly hardy breed of horse, which could excel in multiple terrains, and allowed them to organize their army the way they did. Someone else mentioned the stirrup as a key innovation, as this allowed the battle to become 360 degrees, especially for archers, which is a tremendous advantage. Those are significant advantages against an army whose primary unit was the phalanx, which excelled in open territory.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:30 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
you keep saying things like this as if Alexander would just let them do this
Because it’s more believable than the mongols being surrounded by heavy horse and heavy infantry.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:31 pm to Dire Wolf
quote:
But Ghengis himself didn’t invade Eastern Europe. I think people are wrongly assuming it was Ghengis at the helm of the entire mongol conquests. And fwiw, the mongols had Chinese engineers for sieges.
So we are punishing Genghis for learning, putting trust into good generals under him and adapting to different styles?
No, I was only trying to say that many in this thread are crediting Ghengis for things that happened after his death.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:37 pm to crazy4lsu
Yeah I certainly don’t think Alexander’s army would have beaten Ghengis, but I didn’t really see that as the question. But the OP’s question is pretty undefined.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:53 pm to biglego
Either do I. If you drop the khans horse into 330 bce they destroy everyone I’m not arguing that. My main point is the beerjeep fellow who dismisses Alexander as an afterthought makes me wonder if he has any idea how he got the name Alexander the Great
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:56 pm to crazy4lsu
quote:are you saying Alexander isn’t a top 5 general? Thats a little preposterous
None of those men get included in top 5 generals.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 12:59 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
My main point is the beerjeep fellow who dismisses Alexander as an afterthought
I don’t dismiss him at all. I just think he isn’t on the same level as ghengis.
I think a lot of the credit Alexander gets is due to his influence in the west. We have so much on him that is easily easily translated and understood. Ghengis, while being alive much more recently, is far lesser known in the west simply because we don’t have the source material translated.
It has a lot to do with perception of the two. We live in western civ, the same as the Greeks (Macedonians) so of course we’re going to put massive emphasis on him. We understand the terms, we understand the places, we understand the names. Not so with the mongols.
I’d make the argument that there are plenty of lesser known generals from the east and Middle East that were far better than Alexander in terms of military tactics and mind. We just don’t have the source material here in the west to dive deep into it.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:01 pm to beerJeep
His name isn't Genghis Khan the Great for a reason.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:04 pm to biglego
quote:
But Ghengis himself didn’t invade Eastern Europe.
I mean...he did order one of his generals (Subutai) to take a "small" scouting party of 20000 into Eastern Europe that decimated everyone they came across.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:14 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
are you saying Alexander isn’t a top 5 general? Thats a little preposterous
No, just that the criteria is a little vague and weird. Alexander gets a lot of credit because he was both the general and the ruler of the empire. Genghis Khan was the first to really unite the Mongol tribes, but the impetus behind his success at war was Subutai. It's not all that dissimilar to Muhammad, who united all the Arab tribes, and Khalid ibn Walid, who won more than 200 pitched battles, including ones where he defeated Muhammad's armies before he converted.
He might have been an important general, but there are generals that are supremely underrated, namely because they were subordinates.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:17 pm to beerJeep
quote:
I’d make the argument that there are plenty of lesser known generals from the east and Middle East that were far better than Alexander in terms of military tactics and mind. We just don’t have the source material here in the west to dive deep into it.
This is most definitely true. I think that Vo Nguyen Giap is a extremely underrated commander, but I don't think he gets enough credit for forcing France to leave Indochina precisely because he beat a Western foe.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:21 pm to beerJeep
quote:
Whatever you say... you might wanna reread that battle though.... it seems you didn’t quite grasp what happened.
you don't have shite.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:23 pm to crazy4lsu
Because the French were dumb enough to put their best troops at bottom of a valley while he wheeled in heavy artillery hidden by jungle.
Go look at the casualties. The FFL slaughtered the Viet Minh until they ran out of ammo and supplies.
Go look at the casualties. The FFL slaughtered the Viet Minh until they ran out of ammo and supplies.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:32 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
Either do I. If you drop the khans horse into 330 bce they destroy everyone I’m not arguing that. My main point is the beerjeep fellow who dismisses Alexander as an afterthought makes me wonder if he has any idea how he got the name Alexander the Great
RIght. I think you’re having two different arguments. Of course the AD1220 Mongol army would obliterate the 330BC.
Maybe we should ask what Alexander could’ve done with the Mongol army and vice versa.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:32 pm to prplhze2000
Yeah Giap, nor the North Vietnamese didn't really care about causalities in the face of meeting objectives. Which they did.
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:35 pm to biglego
Mainly I was talking on pure strategy and tactics which I would take alexander
Posted on 4/26/19 at 1:42 pm to Hawgnsincebirth55
quote:
My main point is the beerjeep fellow who dismisses Alexander as an afterthought
You're doing the same with Khan.
Page 7 of 8
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News