Suleiman "The Magnificent" [Carl & Noble Lord vs Ali & Saneel] {fini}

[Carl von Döbeln]

We will let you start.


Cheers/ Carl & Noble Lord

----

Link to Commentary Thread.

[saneel]

Nice As i said, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent surelly wasnt the best general of all time for me, but was a very good.

[The Noble Lord]

Nice As i said, Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent surelly wasnt the best general of all time for me, but was a very good.

First of all, greetings guys. Nice to see you all here .
And thanks to my friend Carl Von Dobeln for opening this thread .

Lets start:

First of all, Suleiman the Magnificent was an excellent administrator and ruler. He got nickname "Kanuni" which means The Lawgiver, and that title symbolizes his rule as being just, efficient, and prosperous. And thats where it ends. When it comes to military matters he was not a general and he was not good military leader at all.
His victories were won by sheer numbers and force of momentum. Like Mohacs and his victories against the Persians in wars of 1548-1549. His invasion of Malta was a disaster where close to 30.000 Ottoman soldiers lost their lives.
Of course that he was on the battlefield but not because he was a general or Marshal but because of the Ottoman tradition that Sultan must lead his armies into battles, no matter how inept or inexperienced Sultan happened to be.

The great generals like Gustavus Adolphus and Marshal Suvorov were on the other hand true soldiers and giants of military science.

Gustavus Adolphus:
The father of modern warfare.
Almost never been defeated in battle.
Military innovator and strategist of unprecedented capabilities.
His "works" studied by military academies around the world.

Marshal Suvorov:
Has unsurpassed record of more then 128 battles fought and every
single one of them was a victory.
Military innovator and strategist of highest quality
His "works" studied by the more prestigious military academies around the world.

So, the better generals were of course Gustavus Adolphus and Marshal Suvorov. Suleiman is nowhere near them, the history has recorded it and we all know it!!!


CHEERS

[Carl von Döbeln]

Suleiman wasn't a good General.
he was very good administrator and very wise ruler, but he was not good general! He won his victories which were not many by sheer numbers and force of momentum. That makes him a good sultan, and very average or even lesser general.

that Ottoman armies were usually numerically superior on the battlefield. Proof is the numbers deployed at battles such as Varna 1444, Kosovo 1448, Chaldiran 1514, Rhodes 1522,Mohacs 1526 etc

The siege of Rhodes Proved that Suleiman was a poor general.

[saneel]

Tell me, how could one nation, outnumber in every single battle the whole balkans,eastern and central europe? And the sheer numbers doesnt mean anything in war :wink: .

[Carl von Döbeln]

Tell me, how could one nation, outnumber in every single battle the whole balkans,eastern and central europe?

Well in most of the battles they did.

And the sheer numbers doesnt mean anything in war

That is not true, Numbers is a very very importent thing in a war, a campaign, a battle etc.
Suleiman lead the army poorly, He sacrificed his men in foolish assults, he won the battles by sheer numbers.

[Ali G]

Those generals that you and Noble Lord are pushing: Gustavus and Suvorov are good, but Suleiman was excellent general and even better emperor.
Your guys were average generals, and not emperors at all.
see the difference? which one is better.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Those generals that you and Noble Lord are pushing: Gustavus and Suvorov are good, but Suleiman was excellent general and even better emperor.
Your guys were average generals, and not emperors at all.
see the difference? which one is better.

Firstly Welcome to the debate Ali.

Suleiman was excellent general

Why did He loose so many men at the battles then? Why did he loose so many men at Rhodes?

He was a poor Military leader, he wasn't a genius, he was a bad general.

and even better emperor

He was a quite good Monarch yes.

Your guys were average generals, and not emperors at all.

Let's start with Gustavus.

He is, and was even during his own time widely regarded as the archetype of what a king should be and one of the few European kings and sovereign princes during the seventeenth century worthy of the office. He was, unquestionably, one of the greatest military generals in all of history.

He Changed the world with his reforms, His innovative tactical integration of infantry, cavalry, artillery and logistics earned him the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare".


Carl von Clausewitz and Napoleon Bonaparte considered him one of the greatest generals of all time, a sentiment agreed to by Patton and others.


And Now Suvorov.


He Never ever lost a battle, He was a Great Military commander, He was a brave leader.

He made some of the Greatest strategical Retreats in history.

He was in terms of military brilliance a very good general.

So, Gustavus and Suvorov were Much better generals than Suleiman, And Gustavus was (In My opinion) also a better monarch.

[saneel]

Gustavus was better monarch? Was Gustavos "The magnificent" or Suleiman? Who rulled bigger, stronger empire? Who besiged "the capital of Europe" Vienna? If would Vienna fallen, maybe those two would meat on the field .

[Ali G]

and it was Suleiman that ruled this massive empire and he expanded it, besides winning battles on the battlefield. that are attributes of greates general.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Gustavus was better monarch? Was Gustavos "The magnificent" or Suleiman? Who rulled bigger, stronger empire?

Gustavus was called the Golden king when he was alive, and as i previously stated
"regarded as the archetype of what a king should be"

His real Name is actually "Gustavus Adolphus the Great.

Gustavus Was the king of a small kingdom ,that he turned into an empire.

He defeated The Holy roman empire, the strongest empire during the period.

and it was Suleiman that ruled this massive empire and he expanded it, besides winning battles on the battlefield. that are attributes of greates general

As i have said before, Suleiman wasn't a good Tactical general.
He won battles by Sheer numbers, And luck.

[saneel]

You can have luck once, but you cant have it always. Ottoman empire was the strongest in that period, HRE was just a shadow.

[saneel]

Yes it does, because he expanded his empire for thousands of kilometers. He almost took "the capital of Europe" Vienna, and he would have take it, if the united European army would come to aid.

[Carl von Döbeln]

Please Orko, Stay out of the debate.

You can have luck once, but you cant have it always. Ottoman empire was the strongest in that period, HRE was just a shadow.

During the 17th century when Gustavus was active HRE Was the most powerfull nation.

[saneel]

O really? Why then they didnt expand their borders? Why only the germans didnt have their own colonies? Why they fell apart on few new countries(prussia,austria,bawaria,...)?

[Carl von Döbeln]

The Holy roman empire was a Union of diffrent german states, And it was mainly because of Gustavus's Actions in the war that the Empire became fragile and divided.

Suleiman Ruled the Huge Ottoman empire, Gustavus ruled Sweden, at the time a small contry, and he attacked the most powerfull nation in europe during the period (Early/mid 17th century) And he won.

[saneel]

Ok, you say he won. But with how many countries this HRE was in war with? What did Sweden gained in this war(territoraly)? I know that Russia pwned Sweden

[Carl von Döbeln]

Oh my...

I will Explain.

1630 Sweden joined the thirty years war, A small swedish army landed in germany under the command of Gustavus adolphus.
1631 Gustavus defeated the army of Count tilly (German General) at breitenfeld.

After one year of War Gustavus gets killed at The Battle of Lutzen, The Swedish army is although victorious.

The war continues until 1648.

After the peace, Sweden has become a Great power.

Long after the war, 1700, The Great northern war begins.

In the beginning The Swedish armies under the command of King Charles are victorious, but being outnumbered They lost at Poltava 1709.

[saneel]

You say...what! With this you say that he is great general and sweden great power! Oh my God! They are both noobs for Ottomans hehe

[Carl von Döbeln]

What do you mean saneel?

I just answered your question:

What did Sweden gained in this war(territoraly)? I know that Russia pwned Sweden

After the Thirty years war, Sweden had become a Great Power, Controlling the north.
Gustavus turned a small local power into an empire.
Suleiman already had a big empire, that he turned into a bigger empire, He didn't face the enemies that Gustavus did, Nobody belived that Gustavus would be victorious, but he was!

They are both noobs for Ottomans hehe

And if you don't know anything about Gustavus or suvorov, you shouldn't say that Suleiman was better

I know that Russia pwned Sweden

And if you think that russia was in the thirty years war...You should read a book about it.



I have explained why Gustavus is a better general than Suleiman many many times.

He is, and was even during his own time widely regarded as the archetype of what a king should be and one of the few European kings and sovereign princes during the seventeenth century worthy of the office. He was, unquestionably, one of the greatest military generals in all of history.

He Changed the world with his reforms, His innovative tactical integration of infantry, cavalry, artillery and logistics earned him the title of the "Father of Modern Warfare".


Carl von Clausewitz and Napoleon Bonaparte considered him one of the greatest generals of all time, a sentiment agreed to by Patton and others.