The Commanders of Military History - a Compilation

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Darius' army was huge for the same reason that a cat arches its back, a dog raises its hackles or a blowfish swells up. The size was simply for intimidation purposes. The number of well-trained, well-armed troops he had available really didn't outnumber Alexander's army much at all at Gaugamela. Once the sheer spectacle of his army's size failed to dissuade Alexander from attacking, Darius was done.

Nicely put, and it supports even more the premise that Darius was an idiot. By Guagemala he knew that Alexander wasn't going to be intimidated, he should therefore have resorted to tactics that were proven to work ie. scorched earth and using natural choke points.

Yes, but do we fault Darius for not taking advantage of the situation, or Alexander for not anticipating and taking action to prevet it

You certainly fault Darius, he was a pillock. Alexander? I think that he took a huge gamble based on what he knew of Darius. Luckily for him it paid off.

As I've said before, Alexander would have failed the Wellington test (ie. Wellington, one of the best defensive generals ever) would have beaten Alexander because he would have employed the correct strategy and tactics).

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

Nicely put, and it supports even more the premise that Darius was an idiot. By Guagemala he knew that Alexander wasn't going to be intimidated, he should therefore have resorted to tactics that were proven to work ie. scorched earth and using natural choke points.

Alexander was already marching through nothing. The area he was going through had already destroyed armies in the past; it didn't affect Alexander at all. You simply don't get that Darius was trying to use such a policy.

And there were no "choke point" to catch Alexander in. The Tigris was only about a foot deep at this time of the year. Well, first, that's exactly what he did at Issus. He had a river and enclosed space. That didn't work out so well. There was nothing like that around.

And Darius did try and oppose Alexander as he crossed the Tigris. Alexander simply turned at the last second, and crossed 40 miles up stream. For Alexander, this would have been just about a day's march. Few others could hope to achieve this.

Darius at the Tigris had his cavalry stick to Alexander, with the intention of opposing them as they crossed if the main body could not reach them. It was not a bad plan at all. Opposing Alexander at the Tigris simply wasn't much of a possibility.

As I've said before, Alexander would have failed the Wellington test (ie. Wellington, one of the best defensive generals ever) would have beaten Alexander because he would have employed the correct strategy and tactics).

Darius wasn't going to have a bunch of Prussians ride in and save him at the last second.

Darius had tried everything you people keep suggesting, and it all failed.

[Arcaliea]

Gee. Darius did try choke points. Alexander's army is much more powerful, comparatively, in choke points. He made the best sieges in ancient history before and after Gaugamela.

Darius did try scorched earth. Didn't work out that well. Also, just how far can you use that policy? Until your own capitals and heartland are burning?

Darius did try numerous different tactics at Gaugamela. You are the idiot, not Darius, if you think Gaugamela was a repeat of Issus. Forget the cliffnotes historians. Re-armament, re-training, new troops, new formation, preparation of the ground, chariots, palisades, etc, etc.

edit: additionally, people try to use the argument that without the levies, darius didnt outnumber alexander much. Oh, gee, that must mean that because darius ONLY *outnumbers* alexander by a "bit", it's nothing, right? Sure, it wasn't a bloody 15 vs 1 battle, but that only supports my argument aginst people that say "Darius lost with a hugely superior army". Blame Persia if you want, but not Darius' personal intelligence.

[Stanimir the pessimistic]

For my low brow tastes,Tamerlane is the man.To compare him to a bandit may be about right,but I like to think of him as being something of an honest fellow....if you resisted him then you know where you stood,in terrible danger.Warfare seems so dishonest now,we have to invent reasons for killing people and taking there stuff,why not just tell them the truth?...."I want your stuff,gimme it or I will roll you up into a carpet and have you kicked to death".Hell,I do not know if he was the greatest of all time,it seems like every author/historian has a reason why this or that guy was the best,I am chalking up my pick for the simple reason of personal taste.I am also writing this because there are tiny microbes that are infesting my body at the moment and I have taken alot of nyquil.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

edit: additionally, people try to use the argument that without the levies, darius didnt outnumber alexander much. Oh, gee, that must mean that because darius ONLY *outnumbers* alexander by a "bit", it's nothing, right? Sure, it wasn't a bloody 15 vs 1 battle, but that only supports my argument aginst people that say "Darius lost with a hugely superior army". Blame Persia if you want, but not Darius' personal intelligence.

He still would have vastly outnumbered Alexander. He had an over 5:1 numerical advantage against Alexander in cavalry, and pretty much all of it was of excellent quality.

[Illyrian]

How can you compare wellington and alexander??? We're talking 2000 years difference. Wellington could not face Napoleon's army in the open field. He used ambushes, and diversions to win waterloo. I can't understand how that logic works. GUNS vs arrows, bayonnets vs swords, dragoons vs companions. these different weapons require different tactics. Lets take the best example, Constantinople. It survived masterfully every attack sent towards it, until the turkish cannon rased the walls to the ground. How would WELLINGTON judge that? I think that your argument Tactical is flawed. The reason why Darius was victorious with his neighbors IMO is that he could muster great numbers of soldiers, and the inferior armies of the regions could not do anything against that. The greeks and all their neighbors had different traditions, better training in military affairs, and it showed time in and time out in the battlefield. Cheers.

[conon394]

Constantinople. It survived masterfully every attack sent towards it, until the turkish cannon rased the walls to the ground

Actually the Turkish guns did nothing of the sort. The city lacked sufficient soldiers, and the victorious Turkish sally was launch through a postern gate that was left opened not breached walls.

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

How can you compare wellington and alexander??? We're talking 2000 years difference. Wellington could not face Napoleon's army in the open field. He used ambushes, and diversions to win waterloo. I can't understand how that logic works.

I'm not, I am merely using Wellington as an example of an excellent defensive general who fully understood exactly how to use terrain, scorched earth and strategic depth to defeat a superior army. The fact that he fought in an age of firearms and cannons is not important, the strategy of doing so is no different whatever age you are fighting in. If you don't believe me, read about the Peninsular campaign. Against Alexander he (or any competant defensive general) would have done the same, using his strategic depth to starve Alexander's army and only contesting in places where the land gave maximum advantage.
Darius chose not to do so, to rely on his huge numbers, and he lost.

The greeks and all their neighbors had different traditions, better training in military affairs, and it showed time in and time out in the battlefield.

All the more reason for a sensible, intelligent general not to take them on in the battlefield, particularly after you have previously lost twice before.

Darius did try scorched earth. Didn't work out that well. Also, just how far can you use that policy? Until your own capitals and heartland are burning

He didn't fully implement it, it was never more than half-hearted. If he had even used it properly in the lead up to the crossing of the Tigris Alexander would have problems going any further. And even if Alexander had got through so what? Darius would only have lost what the Persians termed their Western Empire, he could have continued the policy and drawn Alexander further and further East, all the time harrasing and starving him. Alexander's army would have simply disapeared from starvation and desertion.

Alexander was already marching through nothing.

I'm sorry ABH, but that is the first time I have seen you write something totally stupid. On the march to the Tigris from the Euphrates (about 300 miles) Alexander spent 5-7 weeks because the land was so fertile he didn't have to hurry. Once he had crossed the Tigris (totally unopposed) he again rested his army again because the countryside was so fertile. He was not passing through nothing, he was passing through extremely fertile farmland which Darius left untouched.

And Darius did try and oppose Alexander as he crossed the Tigris. Alexander simply turned at the last second, and crossed 40 miles up stream.

Nope, he crossed at Abu Dahir which is the main ford on the Tigris and where the Persian Royal Road crossed the river. Darius' troops were nowhere to be seen and it wasn't until the 25th September (5 days later) that they encountered any of Darius' cavalry.

The Tigris was only about a foot deep at this time of the year

Then why do the records ssay that Alexander had to line the crossing with his cavalry to break the force of the current which came above the waists of the infantry before they could cross?

In short, Darius made a huge tactical error, he didn't contest the crossing of the Tigris and he didn't attempt to weaken Alexander's army through starvation. He must have thought that his huge army would defeat the small 47,000 men of Alexander's army. That would be acceptable if he hadn't been defeated twice before. As another post has said, it is as if Darius was so wedded to the traditional Persian concept of the numericallly overwhelming army crushing all before it that he didn't have the mental flexibility to change his tactics to one that would have won.

And for those that say that scorched earth and use of the Tigris wasn't feasible, King Shapur II defeated Julian and his romans using exactly that strategy. He scorched the earth leading up to the Tigris, and then contested the crossing with cavalry.

[Silencio]

Why does it always have to go down as Alexander V Hannibal?

[Tacticalwithdrawal]

Stuffed if I know, very boring if you ask me. Genghis is clearly the best......

Probably because both Alexander and Hanibal have some very fervent supporters that will always dive in to defend their heroes and are just not willing to here anything that even remotely shows them up in a poor light.

Makes life fun though

[JAN]

At risk of getting completely off topic, exactly what ambushes and diversions did Wellington use at Waterloo Illyrian?

JAN.

[Alexander Beats Hannibal]

I'm not, I am merely using Wellington as an example of an excellent defensive general who fully understood exactly how to use terrain, scorched earth and strategic depth to defeat a superior army. The fact that he fought in an age of firearms and cannons is not important, the strategy of doing so is no different whatever age you are fighting in. If you don't believe me, read about the Peninsular campaign. Against Alexander he (or any competant defensive general) would have done the same, using his strategic depth to starve Alexander's army and only contesting in places where the land gave maximum advantage.
Darius chose not to do so, to rely on his huge numbers, and he lost.

Right. What terrain in battle would have been superior to what Darius chose? At Issus he had put Alexander in a situation where the Persians only had to hold the lines to win the war, and had broken the phalanx by making them cross a deep river with steep banks (plus added palisades). He left no way for Alexander to repeat what he did at the Granicus. His plan was sound, and made full use of the terrain.

At Gaugamela he put his army on a carefully designed battlefield with a number of traps to break up the phalanx, while still allowing him to use his cavalry superiority to the maximum. Once again, there was no way Alexander could have avoided being flanked/surrounded completely by the Persians.

And the only way Wellington won Waterloo was having a fresh force arrive and overwhelm the French.

And even if Alexander had got through so what? Darius would only have lost what the Persians termed their Western Empire, he could have continued the policy and drawn Alexander further and further East, all the time harrasing and starving him. Alexander's army would have simply disapeared from starvation and desertion.

Sorry, but he was already in the heart of Persia. Fleeing would have meant giving up the capital of Persia, and it's greatest cities. And nothing stopped Alexander from stopping at Babylon or Persepolis. Let Darius keep fleeing. What good does it do him? He's lost his treasure, family and any honor he had left. He most likely would have been killed off. His army would have suffered more desertions than Alexander's. You seem to not realize how much of an affect this has on the morale of the army carrying it out. They don't like to destroy their own lands, and keep running from the enemies.

I'm sorry ABH, but that is the first time I have seen you write something totally stupid. On the march to the Tigris from the Euphrates (about 300 miles) Alexander spent 5-7 weeks because the land was so fertile he didn't have to hurry. Once he had crossed the Tigris (totally unopposed) he again rested his army again because the countryside was so fertile. He was not passing through nothing, he was passing through extremely fertile farmland which Darius left untouched.

Alexander didn't go through the Euphrates, which Darius had planned to destroy, because once again, Alexander changed his course.

Nope, he crossed at Abu Dahir which is the main ford on the Tigris and where the Persian Royal Road crossed the river. Darius' troops were nowhere to be seen and it wasn't until the 25th September (5 days later) that they encountered any of Darius' cavalry.

Alexander didn't cross at Abu Dahir, but Abu Wajnam, which is way further South. Darius had his army prepared at Mosol. He could not hope to march in time to meet Alexander at the other crossings. His cavalry was supposed to hold up Alexander where ever they crossed. Alexander did encounter Persian scouts when he crossed, they simply had no impact.

Then why do the records ssay that Alexander had to line the crossing with his cavalry to break the force of the current which came above the waists of the infantry before they could cross?

Because it's propaganda...

n short, Darius made a huge tactical error, he didn't contest the crossing of the Tigris and he didn't attempt to weaken Alexander's army through starvation

He attempted both, Alexander simply bipassed him.

He must have thought that his huge army would defeat the small 47,000 men of Alexander's army. That would be acceptable if he hadn't been defeated twice before. As another post has said, it is as if Darius was so wedded to the traditional Persian concept of the numericallly overwhelming army crushing all before it that he didn't have the mental flexibility to change his tactics to one that would have won.

This doesn't seem to be what Darius thought at all. First, he had only been defeated once, at Issus. The Persians at this point figured they screwed up, and chose the wrong terrain. They decided to fight in the open to better use their cavalry superiority this time. This would make sense, it shows that they were thinking, and far more so then the Romans Hannibal fought who thought it was a good idea to keep fighting Hannibal on flat terrain, and failing to even scout when they were around him. If Darius thought numbers alone would do it, he wouldn't have bothered to prepare the battlefield, and retrain and re-equip many of his forces. He did everything in his power to get a superior force not in just numbers but in quality, as well. And if Darius had simply been relying on numbers, he would have actually used his levvies, instead of leaving them back in reserve.

[Shawkhan]

...When I was receiving my military education at government expense we were taught that warfare is properly divided into eras dominated by specific weapon systems. In that context, comparing Alexander with someone from a different era makes little sense. He properly belongs in the era dominated by heavy infantry, up to the late Roman Republic/Early Imperial. The fact that he was also to develop heavy cavalry-type tactics to the extent he did is one of the many things that make Alexander remarkable. Comparing him to any general past the invention of the stirrup is largely irrelevant.
...Genghis was a master of cavalry, benefiting from the technology of a thousand years later, including the cavalry stirrup and the improved horsearcher's bow. He properly belongs to the Age of Cavalry. Horse archers indeed had their time of dominance, but it must be remembered that even during the crusades, horse archers were yielding to the advent of true heavy cavalry, featuring heavy steel armor, all but impervious to the light bows carried by horse archers.
...Of course a couple hundred years later, infantry, with the use of the Longbow was once again to dominate the battlefield.
...One of the things I find fascinating about warfare is the way that different weapon systems define a period of history. Just because a general is a master of one form of warfare doesn't mean he will be equally gifted with a different weapon system.
...In short, comparing Alexander to Wellington is essentially pointless. Nothing could be farther from the shock combat practiced by Alexander than the warfare dominated by gunfire of Wellington's era.
...I would imagine that the defense of the chateau at Hougamont, the use of reverse slopes to shield infantry from cannonfire and the infantry square formation to counter cavalry might be considered 'tricks' by someone who thinks armies should just slug it out man to man on an open battlefield. Just a guess though.

[Illyrian]

As i said before Constantinople fell as a result of the breach of the walls as well as other tactics. http://campus.northpark.edu/history/...onstantin.html Thats the link from Northpark university. THe same sultan came to Albania after his father Murat did. THey didn't conquer the country after 25 years. google the siege of KRUJA, http://www.geocities.com/spiritofalbania/kruja.htm. He only conquered it after Skenderbej died, Sultan Murat's greatest general.

[Iskender Bey]

Sieging Kruja was not like sieging Constantinople. Kruja overlooks a steep mountain, not too much space. Meaning that when sieging, Murat or Mehmed could only use a few men at a time. It was a Thermopylae situation so to speak, while in Constantinople, the forces were getting overwhelmed due to Mehmed's ability to use large forces. It is amazing that a few thousand men could hold off such large forces(Murat had about 80,000), but Kruja and Constantinople were different situations.

Numbers in Albania never made much of a difference since the territories were so mountaneous that often, huge numbers were restricting.

[Illyrian]

it is the tactics that actually beat murat and mehmet. Lets not forget that Skenderbej was The sultan's greatest general and conquered eastern europe, asia in the name of the Ottomans. I think his knowledge of the area as well as his hit and run tactics on supply lines and night attacks like ALEXANDER's tactics at Arigaeum i think, the last persian stronghold, i might be wrong, i know that it was in today's Afganistan. But Lets not forget that the turks attacked Constantinople from the sea passing by the Byzantine fire ships, and their whole fleet.

Another note, Kruja is not as difficult as you make it sound. I have been there, and there is only one side protected by the mountains and the other three are at the mercy of what attacks it, and requires men to protect it. I believe that it has been proven that the Byzantine navy committed a great blunder in allowing the turks to get on their rearguard, and wars at times are decided by simple minuscular mistakes.

[Iskender Bey]

Another note, Kruja is not as difficult as you make it sound. I have been there, and there is only one side protected by the mountains and the other three are at the mercy of what attacks it, and requires men to protect it

You have to realize the sheer number of men that Murad or Mehmed had and picture that even 1000 men is pretty packed for the area. Before gun powder, the castle was pretty much unconquerable. So much so that the Byzantine Emperor gave the area autonomy, its strategic position was incredible, add this to Scanderbeg genius during the sieges. Even till the end, kruaj was not captured by force but by starvation, which shows just how difficult it was to take, a large force was impossible, the best Mehmed or Murad could hope for was a long term strangeling by literally keeping the Albanian soldiers at arms till they had no more strength. Yes, there were blunders during the siege of Constantinople but also ingenuity on the part of Mehmed, the 7000 soldiers were also very small considering the large space.

[Silencio]

Quote:
"Lets not forget that Skenderbej was The sultan's greatest general and conquered eastern europe, asia in the name of the Ottomans."

Illyrian, I think you should quit smoking....

[Iskender Bey]

What he has been smoking he has done so for a long long while. Illyrian, Scanderbeg was just a minor general in the Ottoman army. He never even controlled his own army, rather he led a cavalry unit. You need first leave this crazy nationalism you have at the door before you post....

[Illyrian]

Read the book Iskenderbej, that's all i am asking. There are so many of them only if you can read, and i hope u can. There is one by Fan Stilian Noli, Marin Barleti, Kristo Frasheri, and Ismail Kadare. Just read man a ****ing Book. DOn't come in here and speak bull****. I don't want to hear your crap, unless you have something to back it up with. The books are there, GET OFF THE INTERNET AND READ SOMETHING. I CHOSE MY THREADS. I SPEAK ONLY OF WHAT I AM SURE OF. HIS BOOK IN THE 16TH CENTURY WAS TRANSLATED IN OVER 5 LANGUAGES, RUN in OVER 13 COUNTRIES OF EUROPE, with the FIRST COPY written in VENICE. PLEASE READ HIS STORY. He did lead his own army against Huniad (spelling) as he did in Asia minor and the easter european steppes.

Silencio, have you ever read anything about George Kastrioti? Would this be the first?
If so please read something about him as books about him have been sirculating Spain since the 16th century. I don't smoke, but there is nothing out in Enqlish about him. What you can find is very basic, but let me tell you, that Skenderbej had been leading the sultan's cavalry since he was 18 years old, and he had his first combat in an Arena at that age. Like the roman empire's gladiators, the turks valued courage and honor, and when someone insulted you, they would have to kill you. They would fight in the arena, stripped naked till one would die. He soon after that became one of the sultan's most trusted and hardworking generals. Duels like the french and english in the victorian era. I told Iskenderbej before, i take pride in my knowledge of my country's history, and i learn everyday something new here in this forum about everybody elses history. If you fellas over here speak or read Albanian, I will take it upon myself to quote the book on here.

Don't insult my intelligence when you don't know something about the subject i put on there. As far as Iskenderbej is concerned, he has only knowledge of the legends that live around Skenderbej, and i know all of them and more. There is no legend about my country that i do not know. AND I SAY THAT WITH A MOUTHFULL.

As far as Kruja, i have visited it many times, and i have actually fallen from the walls of the Castle trying to measure its heights. DOn't worry now the walls are not more 2-3 meters high from the main road that takes you to the bazar. THe old bazar has been preserved as it was 500 years before, and i tell you is the most expensive place in the northern or southern albania. THere are slopes on the flanks of the front gates where there are small cannons mounted, the old turkish kind. and there are hills infront of those flanks from which cannon fire can be directed from. There were 10000 soldiers in Constantinople not 1000.

Kruja fell because the defenders were betrayed. They found dead animals in their wells and the water was undrinkable. No turks ever went over those walls. Women fought for that castle beside their husbands dropping tar, and rocks on the heads of the turks.

The Turks named GEORGE KASTRIOTI --->Iskender--->Alexander the Great, because he was the best they had known. Bej is the title given to him. There are records in Istambul that back up my claims. He lived with the sultan in his court, going to the sultan's academy since he was 9 years old. for about as many years as he lived in his country as the free prince of the Arber. No one is real sure of ISkenderbej's date of birth and most scholars believe he was born in 1403-05 and died in 1468.

The pope at the time called him defender of christianity because as we all know Constantinople went under not long ago, and the pope Pius II himself tried to come to Kruja through Dyrrhacium to crown him King of Albania or Arberia as it was called then, but the pope died on his way. He was going to make George Kastrioti, son of Gjon Kastrioti the leader of a crusade to reclaim Constantinople or Istambul as it was renamed. His plans for another crusade died with the pope in the adriatic. George Kastrioti died in 1468 as a prince of Albania. He died of malaria. Now anyone who knows his history better then me here, who has read all the books that i have mentioned above, please come forward and enlighten me.

I said it before and i say it again, wars were won or lost because of some miscalculation of one of the sides, and i believe from the sources that i have read, that the byzantines made grave errors that cost them their capital. Byzantium was in a better shape then Kruja had ever been when it comes to fortifications. Lets not forget that the Byzantines had possessed a navy unmatched by any other power through out their reign in 1000 years. They had secrets that have never been uncovered. That is all i can say. I can't wait to hear your responses