History's Greatest Military Campaign.

[Spear Dog]

In an attempt to prevent my thread on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour being derailed into a discussion of military campaigns, I'd like people to nominate what they think is history's Greatest Military Campaign. Some come readily to mind and I suspect Alexander will be well supported, but there are many, many others with claims to the title.

I will nominate Hernando Cortez and his conquest of New Mexico.

Cortez made a continuous string of brilliant strategic decisions always backing himself while making daring and risky moves. He didn't always win, but he always came back 'with a vengeance' as they say, and ultimately he prevailed - which counts for everything.

I doubt anyone in history faced such overwhelming odds. IIRC he had about 400 Spaniards and came up against hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants. Granted he made alliances with tribal confederacies that evened up the numbers, but at the outset he had no idea that this would even be on option and the Spanish generally bore the brunt of the attack and did the heavy lifting and everyone of them that survived suffered numerous wounds on numerous occasions yet persevered. The author of the primary source, Bernal Diaz, claims to have fought in over 100 battles.

Cortez's conscription of the young woman Malinche; - a girl child of the Aztec realm raised in the Mayan realm and tasked by the Mayan's with learning spanish to communicate with 2 priests stranded by the first expedition to mainland America - was almost spooky in its fortuitousness. Her language skills and knowledge of the indian confederacies cannot be under estimated, but Cortez's foresight in listening to her insights and recommended actions - where many, if not most, Spanish minor nobles of this era would have consigned her to the role of servant dismissing any opinion (even punishing for offering such) - can only be commended.

His ultimate victory opened up the conquest of an entire, fantastically rich, continent whose wealth would fuel the European economies for the better part of the next two centuries. Where would Britain be today without the Spanish to prey upon at that crucial time in their history? To name but one flow-on from the conquest of South America. It would be folly for me to wander into detail as it is many years since I read Bernal Diaz's fantastic and exciting first hand account - which I heartily recommend to anyone who prefers/enjoys primary sources - suffice to say this is the military feat which has had the greatest impression on me.

I nominate the 'discovery and conquest of Mexico (New Spain in many translations)' as set out in the first hand account of Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Conquistador, as the greatest military feat in history.

Which campaign would you nominate and why.

[saxdude]

I'd take Bernal Diaz's accounts with a big grain of salt if I were you, and look up plenty of the other sources, from Cortez, other conquistadors, missionaries and the natives themselves before making any broad assumptions.

I doubt anyone in history faced such overwhelming odds. IIRC he had about 400 Spaniards and came up against hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants. Granted he made alliances with tribal confederacies that evened up the numbers, but at the outset he had no idea that this would even be on option and the Spanish generally bore the brunt of the attack and did the heavy lifting and everyone of them that survived suffered numerous wounds on numerous occasions yet persevered. The author of the primary source, Bernal Diaz, claims to have fought in over 100 battles.

The highlighted being a prime example of what I mean. I suppose I could elaborate, but I am soooo busy so maybe tommorow. Also Kingdoms, or states, pl0x. Not tribes.

Even then, Cortez was brilliant and lucky as hell, if quite the arse.

[hellheaven1987]

Cortez should feel lucky that he faced a early Bronze Age state.

[Kitsunegari]

I think there were roughly 250 Spaniards. Anyway my nomination would be Subotai's western campaign against the Rus and then the Hungarians and Poles.

[Spear Dog]

I think there were roughly 250 Spaniards. Anyway my nomination would be Subotai's western campaign against the Rus and then the Hungarians and Poles.

I'd be very interested in some details when/if you have the time and feel inclined. I am completely ignorant of Subotai.

-- OK, just had a quick read online (Epic World History -NOT wiki). Wow, busy boy with a genuine claim to all time greatest. Would still love to known more about his western campaign as the article I just read was only gave a quick summary.

[Cyclops]

"Greatest". I suppose we need to define this a bit. Great means big, could mean army size, area of conflict, intensity of conflict, soldiers killed, civilians affected, "historical importance" etc etc.

Cortez's campaign was a great surprise for all involved, and conquered a wide area, but was not an epic campaign for numbers or skill. From a cultural and historical viewpoint it was part of a pivotal moment, but Pizarro showed Cortez acheivementsd were hardly unique, and inmfluenced by ttech disparity as well as Jared Diamondesque factors.

Ghenghis Khan's campaigns were enormous, covered huge areas and populations against an incredible variety of opponents.

Alexander had a huge oppoent and also covered great distances and numbers.

Hitler's Eastern Campaign was surely the biggest armed conflict in history, with the most deaths. It also showed amazing levels of skill (especially by the Wehrmacht in the early phases, but also by the Red army toward the end). It covered a substantial area (although not on a Mongolian scale), and probably affected more civilians than any other campaign. There were battles that lasted months, relentless killing across hundreds of kilometres of front, sieges of merciless cruelty, and hideous warcrimes.

So I'd say the Eastern Front WW2. Not the greatest for the people involved though, more like Hell.

[Condottiere 40K]

The Germans were unlucky in Russia: it could have gone their way if they weren't distracted by Mussolini's Mediterranean meddling, and Hitler's headstrong hubris.

[Wheatley]

Julius Ceasar's gallic wars.

[neoptolemos]

Alexander's Campaign nuff said

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

From sources I have read the Aztecs had a t most 100,000 men fighting Cortez at one time (that most likely includes civilians as well) and while Cortez only had a few hundred Spaniards he was apparently able to raise a force of over 60,000 natives from all of those disaffected with Aztec rule (Tlaxcalans, few Mayans from the Mexica border areas and all sorts of other cities).

Another really good campaign was Napoleon's Italian Campaign and the 1805 campaign which were essentially perfect, so was the Prussia campaign if you are willing to disregard the Battles of Eylau and Heilbserg as these were just minor tactical defeats and it was evident that the French were still pushing the Russians back.

Subedei's campaigns in Russia and later on against Hungary and Poland were also perfectly conducted.
Genghis' campaigns against the Jin dynasty were rather perfect as well as was his campaign against the Kwarezmians.

Turenne's 1675 campaign was pretty amazing also, he essentially overran the Spanish Netherlands in like 2 weeks and then went on to defeat several German armies (led by all sorts of Holy Roman Princes and generals). It would have been the greatest campaign in the entire gunpowder era had he not died at the Battle of Salzbach, at that battle he would have routed Montecuccoli's army and essentially crushed all effective Hapsburg opposition. But right when Montecuccoli's troops were beginning to falter Turenne was struck by a cannon ball and the routing Hapsburg army was not absolutely destroyed, although they retreated in rather horrible order and lots of men were lost in that retreat. Eventually Montecuccoli's troops managed to regroup (albeit considerably weakened) and advanced into Alsace only to be confronted by Louis Prince of Conde.


Nobunaga's 1575 Nagashino campaign and his campaigns against the Takeda were relatively perfect, with the only bad results being on Ieyasu's part early on. But at Nagashino the Takeda committed several blunders: First of all, the Uesugi were in an alliance with the Tokugawa and Oda and so Katsuyori arrogantly believed that he could take them on at the same time.
He sent Kosaka Masanobu north into Shinano to take the Uesugi strongholds in that area with about half of the army while Katsuyori himself brought the remaining 15,000 - 20,000 or so troops to besiege the couple hundred troops in Nagashino castle in Tottomi. Much to his surprise a 38,000 man Tokugawa and Oda army rapidly marched to its relief and set up double palisades manned by gunners. Katsuyori ordered several attacks on the Oda in the fog right into the matchlocks (the fact that he ordered an assault into gunners is not a mistake, his father Shingen had earlier launched a cavalry assault into the Tokugawa gunners and defeated their army at Mikatagahara) but now Katsuyori was ordering an assault onto not just one wall of palisades but a double wall (which could not easily be dismantled), so this was mistake number two.
The Oda then launched an infantry assault to defeat the oncoming Takeda troops and once these were routed Nobunaga himself led a cavalry assault to "sweep up the rest". His third mistake was losing the battle itself and with it most of his army and generals, in fact Katsuyori himself would have fallen had it not been for Kosaka Masanobu disobeying his orders and hurrying back south to hold off the attacking Oda troops and then doing a rear guard action to block off Katsuyori's escape. The Oda called off the pursuit and the rest was a Tokugawa assaults on various Takeda border castles until 1582 when the Tokugawa (led by Tokugawa Ieyasu) launched an invasion from the South while the Oda (led by Oda Nobunaga, Oda Nobutada and Takigawa Kazumasu) launched an attack from the North and ended the Takeda clan.

[Diocle]

Gengis Khan. I doubt anyone ever conquered more land ....

Genghis Khan; Chingis/Chinghis khaan; 1162? – August 1227, born Temujin, was the founder and Great Khan (emperor) of the Mongol Empire, which became the largest contiguous empire in history after his demise.

He came to power by uniting many of the nomadic tribes of northeast Asia. After founding the Mongol Empire and being proclaimed "Genghis Khan", he started the Mongol invasions that resulted in the conquest of most of Eurasia. These included raids or invasions of the Kara-Khitan Khanate, Caucasus, Khwarezmid Empire, Western Xia and Jin dynasties. These campaigns were often accompanied by wholesale massacres of the civilian populations – especially in the Khwarezmian controlled lands. By the end of his life, the Mongol Empire occupied a substantial portion of Central Asia and China.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

and considering that he started out as the son of a minor ruler and then was reduced to literal poverty (like a literal subsistence life style as a child and having to provide food for his family), then I have to agree. He's most likely THE greatest military commander in history.

[Sharpe]

In an attempt to prevent my thread on the Japanese attack on Pearl Harbour being derailed into a discussion of military campaigns, I'd like people to nominate what they think is history's Greatest Military Campaign. Some come readily to mind and I suspect Alexander will be well supported, but there are many, many others with claims to the title.

I will nominate Hernando Cortez and his conquest of New Mexico.

Cortez made a continuous string of brilliant strategic decisions always backing himself while making daring and risky moves. He didn't always win, but he always came back 'with a vengeance' as they say, and ultimately he prevailed - which counts for everything.

I doubt anyone in history faced such overwhelming odds. IIRC he had about 400 Spaniards and came up against hundreds of thousands of enemy combatants. Granted he made alliances with tribal confederacies that evened up the numbers, but at the outset he had no idea that this would even be on option and the Spanish generally bore the brunt of the attack and did the heavy lifting and everyone of them that survived suffered numerous wounds on numerous occasions yet persevered. The author of the primary source, Bernal Diaz, claims to have fought in over 100 battles.

Cortez's conscription of the young woman Malinche; - a girl child of the Aztec realm raised in the Mayan realm and tasked by the Mayan's with learning spanish to communicate with 2 priests stranded by the first expedition to mainland America - was almost spooky in its fortuitousness. Her language skills and knowledge of the indian confederacies cannot be under estimated, but Cortez's foresight in listening to her insights and recommended actions - where many, if not most, Spanish minor nobles of this era would have consigned her to the role of servant dismissing any opinion (even punishing for offering such) - can only be commended.

His ultimate victory opened up the conquest of an entire, fantastically rich, continent whose wealth would fuel the European economies for the better part of the next two centuries. Where would Britain be today without the Spanish to prey upon at that crucial time in their history? To name but one flow-on from the conquest of South America. It would be folly for me to wander into detail as it is many years since I read Bernal Diaz's fantastic and exciting first hand account - which I heartily recommend to anyone who prefers/enjoys primary sources - suffice to say this is the military feat which has had the greatest impression on me.

I nominate the 'discovery and conquest of Mexico (New Spain in many translations)' as set out in the first hand account of Bernal Diaz del Castillo, Conquistador, as the greatest military feat in history.

Which campaign would you nominate and why.

You realize that 90% of the native population were wiped out by "Childhood diseases" of Europe such as smallpox and Influenza? That is exactly why he could do what he did, the same with the Europeans in North America, disease was the absolute defining factor in these campaigns.

Not to mention the immense amount of Tlaxcalan allies that Cortez used - even Bernal Diaz refers to this. Then there is the actions of Montezuma such as believing Cortez being a God, and his empire being pitiful under his leadership, he was naive even.

It was hardly a conquest, more an accidental biological genocide.

And never, ever, ever believe the primary sources of the Conquistadors - seriously, especially Bernal Diaz lol. These are refereed to as Probanzas and were were written to embellish and glorify the acts of people such as Cortez, so they could garner more support from the crown, half the stuff they say is most likely fabricated.

You need to check a book called "The Myths of the Spanish Conquest" by Matthew Restall I believe.

[Lord Oda Nobunaga]

I do see the conquest of Mexico as being a conquest of arms to a greater degree, as opposed to the conquest of the Inca which was clearly just a clever ploy rather than effective Spanish military might. Literally all that it took was the capture of Atahualpa and after that it became so much easier, otherwise there were only very few instances where a battle could actually help the Spanish.

[saxdude]

You realize that 90% of the native population were wiped out by "Childhood diseases" of Europe such as smallpox and Influenza? That is exactly why he could do what he did, the same with the Europeans in North America, disease was the absolute defining factor in these campaigns.

Not to mention the immense amount of Tlaxcalan allies that Cortez used - even Bernal Diaz refers to this. Then there is the actions of Montezuma such as believing Cortez being a God, and his empire being pitiful under his leadership, he was naive even.

It was hardly a conquest, more an accidental biological genocide.

And never, ever, ever believe the primary sources of the Conquistadors - seriously, especially Bernal Diaz lol. These are refereed to as Probanzas and were were written to embellish and glorify the acts of people such as Cortez, so they could garner more support from the crown, half the stuff they say is most likely fabricated.

You need to check a book called "The Myths of the Spanish Conquest" by Matthew Restall I believe.

Also the spaniards arrived in the year Ce Acatl, associated with Quetzalcoatl, the rival god of their and their Toltec "ancestors" patron god Tezcatlipoca, which activated quite a few dangerous thoughts in the Aztec population, after the supposed appearance of nine dreadful omens.

Cortez was a pretty smart general, but he was luck as all hell. He took on an ununified empire crippled by desease, in an ideologically delicate period, helped by a woman who knew 3 of the most important languages of the time in understanding completely foreign politics and costums, and exploited them to his advantage.
But it was hardly a show of arms between the spaniards and the Mesoamericans. Hell it never was even after the conquest.

From sources I have read the Aztecs had a t most 100,000 men fighting Cortez at one time (that most likely includes civilians as well) and while Cortez only had a few hundred Spaniards he was apparently able to raise a force of over 60,000 natives from all of those disaffected with Aztec rule (Tlaxcalans, few Mayans from the Mexica border areas and all sorts of other cities).

I presume you are talking about Otumba? why would there be civilians? Hardly 100,000 as the population of the basin had been dropping rapidly from desease, besides the fact that the Aztecs had little time to prepare so many troops while giving chase to directly after the Noche triste. There really is no reliable source on the number of soldiers on the battlefield. As for the battle itself, the main reason Cortez was able to get out of it alive was because the Aztec warriors were vehement on capturing them for sacrifice rather than killing them on the field, giving Cortez plenty of moments to break out of the encirclement and join his Tlaxcaltec allies. When the Tlaxcaltecs told him that killing the Cihuacoatl and taking the standard from him would cause the enemy army to route according to Aztec war conventions, he struck the head of the army almost suicidally, and the gamble worked out.

[Sharpe]

Also the spaniards arrived in the year Ce Acatl, associated with Quetzalcoatl, the rival god of their and their Toltec "ancestors" patron god Tezcatlipoca, which activated quite a few dangerous thoughts in the Aztec population, after the supposed appearance of nine dreadful omens

Great point, how did I forget to mention it! I used that in an essay last year.

Montezuma was a suspicious man. A weak-ass leader. A few accounts mention him bowing before Cortez on numerous occasions and letting him sit in his throne room or something similar.

Cortez was a pretty smart general, but he was luck as all hell. He took on an ununified empire crippled by desease, in an ideologically delicate period, helped by a woman who knew 3 of the most important languages of the time in understanding completely foreign politics and costums, and exploited them to his advantage.
But it was hardly a show of arms between the spaniards and the Mesoamericans. Hell it never was even after the conquest.

Exploitation to the utmost IMO.

I presume you are talking about Otumba? why would there be civilians? Hardly 100,000 as the population of the basin had been dropping rapidly from desease, besides the fact that the Aztecs had little time to prepare so many troops while giving chase to directly after the Noche triste. There really is no reliable source on the number of soldiers on the battlefield. As for the battle itself, the main reason Cortez was able to get out of it alive was because the Aztec warriors were vehement on capturing them for sacrifice rather than killing them on the field, giving Cortez plenty of moments to break out of the encirclement and join his Tlaxcaltec allies. When the Tlaxcaltecs told him that killing the Cihuacoatl and taking the standard from him would cause the enemy army to route according to Aztec war conventions, he struck the head of the army almost suicidally, and the gamble worked out.

The funny thing is most of his allies died from these diseases too. You old dog Cortez.

A lot of these settler vs native conflicts have similar patterns:

1. Settlers arrive, meet natives, both trade what they see as valuables. (metal to the natives for example, or food for the settlers)
2. Natives begin to get decimated by disease.
3. More settlers arrive, want more land, start moving into native land.
4. More natives die due to disease - at this point they do not have the numbers to stop expansion, simply harass.
5. Settlers crush whats left.

The list is probably more typical of North America than Mesoamerica but large scale battles just didn't happen. The only exception might be the siege of Tenochtitlan, which was a last stand of an already doomed people anyway.

[saxdude]

Double Post.

[Kitsunegari]

I'd be very interested in some details when/if you have the time and feel inclined. I am completely ignorant of Subotai.

-- OK, just had a quick read online (Epic World History -NOT wiki). Wow, busy boy with a genuine claim to all time greatest. Would still love to known more about his western campaign as the article I just read was only gave a quick summary.

I recommend Leo de Hartog's 'Genghis Khan: Conqueror of the World' it's not a difficult read for a novice despite having lots of great details. Despite the title, it does include events after Genghis' death.

[HuangCaesar]

Cortez' army was massive. 13 land ships. 200,000 Native Warriors. And 100 Cavalry. and about 1000 Spanish infantry.

[Sharpe]

OP, define great.

Is it scale, achievement, outcome?