Your favorite military commanders thoughout history?

[The Nuclear Fist]

Sorry, not into Genocidal manics without honor or compassion

In what was was Genghis dishonourable or not compassionate? He was ruthless and shrewd, yes. Brutal to those who opposed him, yes. But the folks under his rule didn't have it that bad, certainly better than any of the other folks who could have conquered them.

[Mkuki]

As much as I admire Gustav, his finance skills were, to say the least, not optimal.

Well nobody can be perfect

Gustav should have been. Stupid fool and his leading from the front. He could have transformed Europe.

[Orcoa]

Sorry, not into Genocidal manics without honor or compassion

In what was was Genghis dishonourable or not compassionate? He was ruthless and shrewd, yes. Brutal to those who opposed him, yes. But the folks under his rule didn't have it that bad, certainly better than any of the other folks who could have conquered them.

There is no honor or compassion is killing entire cities to make a point.

[Sibator]

Sorry, not into Genocidal manics without honor or compassion

In what was was Genghis dishonourable or not compassionate? He was ruthless and shrewd, yes. Brutal to those who opposed him, yes. But the folks under his rule didn't have it that bad, certainly better than any of the other folks who could have conquered them.

Slaughtering surrendered cities to the point of stacking skulls into pyramids, launching plague victims into resisting cities, and letting you troops sack and rape cities without supervision are action that are usually not considered honorable or compassionate.

[Orcoa]

Well nobody can be perfect

Gustav should have been. Stupid fool and his leading from the front. He could have transformed Europe.

He was a warrior, truly one of the last christian warrior kings....it was what he was born to do.

He could of changed europe forever...but then that's not how the world works.

[Sun Wukong]

As long as you surrender to him.

Resist and everyone was put to the sword.

Tolerant of people who didn't fight, at least. Considering the standards of the era, that's not all that shabby. You got some nice trade networks, protection, freedom to preserve your own culture and governance, etc. Not too shabby.

Again, be careful. The "standards of the time" thing doesn't always play well. It was, for instance, considered generally poor form to kill women and children before Temujin's reign (there are practical reasons for this, the Mongol population wasn't that big and it's better for politics to take hostages in any case.) Genghis didn't have so much of a problem with it.

[Sibator]

As long as you surrender to him.

Resist and everyone was put to the sword.

Tolerant of people who didn't fight, at least. Considering the standards of the era, that's not all that shabby. You got some nice trade networks, protection, freedom to preserve your own culture and governance, etc. Not too shabby.

Usually most states did not commit genocide to surrendered cities. The sacking that followed usually wasn't pretty, and massacres happened with alarming frequency, but rarely did they commit genocide simply to scare others into submission.

[Jinos]

Genghis Khan - United an incredibly disparaged people and proceeded to create the largest empire in the world, which survived his death and continued to grow. He was exceptional at delegating authority to generals and bureaucrats, stressed religious and ethnic tolerance as a way to build up his armies and maintain peace, and opened trade between the East and West. Probably the most famous AND infamous man in history.

[Sun Wukong]

In what was was Genghis dishonourable or not compassionate? He was ruthless and shrewd, yes. Brutal to those who opposed him, yes. But the folks under his rule didn't have it that bad, certainly better than any of the other folks who could have conquered them.

Slaughtering surrendered cities to the point of stacking skulls into pyramids, launching plague victims into resisting cities, and letting you troops sack and rape cities without supervision are action that are usually not considered honorable or compassionate.

Genghis was long dead by the time the Mongols were launching bodies into Caffa. And good luck trying to stop an army of that time from raping and pillaging (about the best anyone could manage was limiting it, e.g. "you have three days to go nuts, but after that there will be executions.")

As to the first you have a point.

[Orcoa]

Genghis Khan - United an incredibly disparaged people and proceeded to create the largest empire in the world, which survived his death and continued to grow. He was exceptional at delegating authority to generals and bureaucrats, stressed religious and ethnic tolerance as a way to build up his armies and maintain peace, and opened trade between the East and West. Probably the most famous AND infamous man in history.

Yet he burned entire nations to the ground.

Murdered women, elderly, and children for the sake of proving a point or to scare his enemies.

And he allowed the raping and pillaging of entire cities.

He can go burn in the fiery pits of hell.

[Sibator]

Slaughtering surrendered cities to the point of stacking skulls into pyramids, launching plague victims into resisting cities, and letting you troops sack and rape cities without supervision are action that are usually not considered honorable or compassionate.

Genghis was long dead by the time the Mongols were launching bodies into Caffa. And good luck trying to stop an army of that time from raping and pillaging (about the best anyone could manage was limiting it, e.g. "you have three days to go nuts, but after that there will be executions.")

As to the first you have a point.

He launched plague victims I am rather certain, however, "plague" does not mean simply the bubonic plague. It was a tactic he used when available.

I am not saying sacking cities wasn't common, but if he was "ahead of his time" he would have at least attempted to minimalize it.

[The Nuclear Fist]

Slaughtering surrendered cities to the point of stacking skulls into pyramids,

Khwarezm started that war.

launching plague victims into resisting cities

Source that Genghis Khan himself used plague victims as a method of war? I'm fully aware later Khans did, but not Genghis himself.

and letting you troops sack and rape cities without supervision are action that are usually not considered honorable or compassionate.

Sacking a city was relatively common in war right up until recently, the same is said for rape. How much control Genghis himself had over his troop's raping is debatable. More importantly, both of those were common at the time worldwide.

By the standards of the time, Genghis Khan was relatively tolerant to the conquered. That combined with his impressive martial ability and general administrative skills makes him my personal favourite military commander, though obviously a lot of that credit goes to his subordinate commanders (particularly Subutai).

[Sun Wukong]

Genghis was long dead by the time the Mongols were launching bodies into Caffa. And good luck trying to stop an army of that time from raping and pillaging (about the best anyone could manage was limiting it, e.g. "you have three days to go nuts, but after that there will be executions.")

As to the first you have a point.

He launched plague victims I am rather certain, however, "plague" does not mean simply the bubonic plague. It was a tactic he used when available.

I am not saying sacking cities wasn't common, but if he was "ahead of his time" he would have at least attempted to minimalize it.

You're going to have to give me sources for that. I've never heard of this tactic being used any other time then Caffa. And even then it was only because the plague had forced them to give up the siege, and they were being spiteful.

And, again, I'm not sure exactly what you would have expected him to do.

[Sibator]

He launched plague victims I am rather certain, however, "plague" does not mean simply the bubonic plague. It was a tactic he used when available.

I am not saying sacking cities wasn't common, but if he was "ahead of his time" he would have at least attempted to minimalize it.

You're going to have to give me sources for that. I've never heard of this tactic being used any other time then Caffa. And even then it was only because the plague had forced them to give up the siege, and they were being spiteful.

And, again, I'm not sure exactly what you would have expected him to do.

I can't find a source, so you must be right.

As for what he could have done, I'm not saying he could have, but there attempts he could have made. He could have executed specific sackers, helped victims, etc. It is not that difficult to attempt to do things, even an order not to sack would be better then just letting it happen.

[Sun Wukong]

You're going to have to give me sources for that. I've never heard of this tactic being used any other time then Caffa. And even then it was only because the plague had forced them to give up the siege, and they were being spiteful.

And, again, I'm not sure exactly what you would have expected him to do.

I can't find a source, so you must be right.

As for what he could have done, I'm not saying he could have, but there attempts he could have made. He could have executed specific sackers, helped victims, etc. It is not that difficult to attempt to do things, even an order not to sack would be better then just letting it happen.

One of the things you discover when you're in any sort of managerial position is that making rules you know are going to be broken results in you either having to punish a lot of people you really don't want to, or else gain the reputation of someone who doesn't make good on his threats. Genghis was definitely not someone who failed to make good on his threats, and he couldn't afford to punish huge swaths of his army, so it's best that he does nothing.

[Mkuki]

Slaughtering surrendered cities to the point of stacking skulls into pyramids,

and letting you troops sack and rape cities without supervision are action that are usually not considered honorable or compassionate.

By the standards of the time, Genghis Khan was relatively tolerant to the conquered.

As long as you outright surrendered. Otherwise, you faced utter annihilation.

[Sibator]

I can't find a source, so you must be right.

As for what he could have done, I'm not saying he could have, but there attempts he could have made. He could have executed specific sackers, helped victims, etc. It is not that difficult to attempt to do things, even an order not to sack would be better then just letting it happen.

One of the things you discover when you're in any sort of managerial position is that making rules you know are going to be broken results in you either having to punish a lot of people you really don't want to, or else gain the reputation of someone who doesn't make good on his threats. Genghis was definitely not someone who failed to make good on his threats, and he couldn't afford to punish huge swaths of his army, so it's best that he does nothing.

Wrong. He didn't have to execute huge swathes of his army, he had to kill several members to make a point.

And it is pretty clear he made good on his threats when he stacked pyramids of skulls and still let soldiers stack skulls. I'm afraid I don't take the idea that Genghis wouldn't be believed if he didn't let cities be sacked very seriously. And then of course, no one forced him to create a massive and brutal empire.

[Sun Wukong]

One of the things you discover when you're in any sort of managerial position is that making rules you know are going to be broken results in you either having to punish a lot of people you really don't want to, or else gain the reputation of someone who doesn't make good on his threats. Genghis was definitely not someone who failed to make good on his threats, and he couldn't afford to punish huge swaths of his army, so it's best that he does nothing.

Wrong. He didn't have to execute huge swathes of his army, he had to kill several members to make a point.

And it is pretty clear he made good on his threats when he stacked pyramids of skulls and still let soldiers stack skulls. I'm afraid I don't take the idea that Genghis wouldn't be believed if he didn't let cities be sacked very seriously. And then of course, no one forced him to create a massive and brutal empire.

You sound very naive just now.

Let me explain this to you: at this time, when a city is sacked, everyone loots. The warriors who are sacking the city are probably being paid in booty, that's their major source of income. You are literally asking your soldiers to fight for free, and threatening to execute them if they fail to comply.

If he had tried this, I give it two weeks tops before someone poisoned his kumis.

[Sibator]

Wrong. He didn't have to execute huge swathes of his army, he had to kill several members to make a point.

And it is pretty clear he made good on his threats when he stacked pyramids of skulls and still let soldiers stack skulls. I'm afraid I don't take the idea that Genghis wouldn't be believed if he didn't let cities be sacked very seriously. And then of course, no one forced him to create a massive and brutal empire.

You sound very naive just now.

Let me explain this to you: at this time, when a city is sacked, everyone loots. The warriors who are sacking the city are probably being paid in booty, that's their major source of income. You are literally asking your soldiers to fight for free, and threatening to execute them if they fail to comply.

If he had tried this, I give it two weeks tops before someone poisoned his kumis.

There is a difference between paying your soldiers through loot gained and letting them loose on the city. The city could still be plundered, but chaos was not necessary. Do not talk to me like I am a child, I am aware of why sackings occurred. You however, sound very stubborn and bull-headed when you insist there is no other way then Khan's way, when there is much he could have done.

Of course, I repeat, there was no real fucking reason for him to start an empire in the first place beyond blatant greed.

[Sun Wukong]

You sound very naive just now.

Let me explain this to you: at this time, when a city is sacked, everyone loots. The warriors who are sacking the city are probably being paid in booty, that's their major source of income. You are literally asking your soldiers to fight for free, and threatening to execute them if they fail to comply.

If he had tried this, I give it two weeks tops before someone poisoned his kumis.

There is a difference between paying your soldiers through loot gained and letting them loose on the city. The city could still be plundered, but chaos was not necessary. Do not talk to me like I am a child, I am aware of why sackings occurred. You however, sound very stubborn and bull-headed when you insist there is no other way then Khan's way, when there is much he could have done.

It's not "the Khan's way," it was everybody's way. Nobody managed to restrain their armies, except for the Turks (although technically I believe every Muslim army is commanded to do so) insofar as they limited the raping and pillaging to three days.

It's not that people at the time didn't realize this sort of thing was bad, it's just that none of them could figure out a way around it. If you think nobody ever tried "oh, we'll just make a few examples," you're delusional. Reasonably there is nothing he could have done about this one, except for to not invade the city in the first place.

EDIT: I should caveat slightly, somehow Saladin managed to restrain his people. But I don't think this really discounts the above, because the reason it gets mentioned so often by the Europeans is that they were thinking to themselves, "We would never be able to get our people to do that," when they made note of it. And Mongols are at least as into the raping and pillaging as Crusaders.

Of course, I repeat, there was no real fucking reason for him to start an empire in the first place beyond blatant greed.

I don't recall disputing it. If you'll look above you you'll see I started this thing with cautious condemnation.

[Sibator]

There is a difference between paying your soldiers through loot gained and letting them loose on the city. The city could still be plundered, but chaos was not necessary. Do not talk to me like I am a child, I am aware of why sackings occurred. You however, sound very stubborn and bull-headed when you insist there is no other way then Khan's way, when there is much he could have done.

It's not "the Khan's way," it was everybody's way. Nobody managed to restrain their armies, except for the Turks (although technically I believe every Muslim army is commanded to do so) insofar as they limited the raping and pillaging to three days.

It's not that people at the time didn't realize this sort of thing was bad, it's just that none of them could figure out a way around it. If you think nobody ever tried "oh, we'll just make a few examples," you're delusional. Reasonably there is nothing he could have done about this one, except for to not invade the city in the first place.

I never said I expected him to succeed. I would expect him to at least attempt something, even if there was no way it would succeed, or to at the very least condemn.

Of course, for someone who committed genocide, I sincerely doubt he cared.

[Sun Wukong]

It's not "the Khan's way," it was everybody's way. Nobody managed to restrain their armies, except for the Turks (although technically I believe every Muslim army is commanded to do so) insofar as they limited the raping and pillaging to three days.

It's not that people at the time didn't realize this sort of thing was bad, it's just that none of them could figure out a way around it. If you think nobody ever tried "oh, we'll just make a few examples," you're delusional. Reasonably there is nothing he could have done about this one, except for to not invade the city in the first place.

I never said I expected him to succeed. I would expect him to at least attempt something, even if there was no way it would succeed, or to at the very least condemn.

This hearkens back to what I was saying earlier about undermining authority. To make a point of executing people for that, and then to have it be seen that you are powerless to stop it in any case, makes you seem weak.

Which is the one thing Temujin absolutely could not afford to seem.

Of course, for someone who committed genocide, I sincerely doubt he cared.

I doubt so also, though more because he would have just accepted that this is how wars are fought. You know, his own wife was taken as bounty. This was very common practice.

[Sibator]

I never said I expected him to succeed. I would expect him to at least attempt something, even if there was no way it would succeed, or to at the very least condemn.

This hearkens back to what I was saying earlier about undermining authority. To make a point of executing people for that, and then to have it be seen that you are powerless to stop it in any case, makes you seem weak.

Which is the one thing Temujin absolutely could not afford to seem.

Of course, for someone who committed genocide, I sincerely doubt he cared.

I doubt so also, though more because he would have just accepted that this is how wars are fought. You know, his own wife was taken as bounty. This was very common practice.

I sincerely doubt cities would cease to take him seriously. Had he simply stated "I can't do anything about it" I would have supported him more than now.

I also don't believe that allowing for murder and rape to occur in return for power is something to be praised. I also apologize for my earlier ad hominim, I got a little flustered when he called m naïve and talked to me as a child, so I apologize.

[Sun Wukong]

This hearkens back to what I was saying earlier about undermining authority. To make a point of executing people for that, and then to have it be seen that you are powerless to stop it in any case, makes you seem weak.

Which is the one thing Temujin absolutely could not afford to seem.


I doubt so also, though more because he would have just accepted that this is how wars are fought. You know, his own wife was taken as bounty. This was very common practice.

I sincerely doubt cities would cease to take him seriously. Had he simply stated "I can't do anything about it" I would have supported him more than now.

It's been a while since I've read The Secret History of the Mongols, he may have. I doubt it though.

I also don't believe that allowing for murder and rape to occur in return for power is something to be praised. I also apologize for my earlier ad hominim, I got a little flustered when he called m naïve and talked to me as a child, so I apologize.

Again, I'm not coming out in support of Genghis Khan. I simply think it is unreasonable to hold him to standards that no one at the time upheld.

[Sibator]

.

I also don't believe that allowing for murder and rape to occur in return for power is something to be praised. I also apologize for my earlier ad hominim, I got a little flustered when he called m naïve and talked to me as a child, so I apologize.

Again, I'm not coming out in support of Genghis Khan. I simply think it is unreasonable to hold him to standards that no one at the time upheld.

I am mainly arguing against the idea that he was a tolerant guy who was ahead of his time. He was in some aspects, but he was mostly no better than the rest.