12857 réponses à ce sujet

[Giggles_Manically]

I think that Napoleon found a match in the Duke of Wellington.



He was great and innovative and charismatic, but Wellington was definently not a pushover.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Meeeh. He was good. Just not enough to be Napoleon's equal. Napoleon's legacy is unmatched in his time period. What legacy did Wellington leave?

[Giggles_Manically]

Legacy is all well and good but Wellington did beat Napoleon.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Meeeh. He was good. Just not enough to be Napoleon's equal. Napoleon's legacy is unmatched in his time period. What legacy did Wellington leave?

The very boots I slip over my feet to tend to my garden in, especially in wet/muddy weather.

Let Napoleon top THAT!

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Legacy is all well and good but Wellington did beat Napoleon.

With Blucher. Without the Prussians, he would have lost.

[Giggles_Manically]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Legacy is all well and good but Wellington did beat Napoleon.

With Blucher. Without the Prussians, he would have lost.

Debatable.
Wellington could have just been weathering the attacks until he could properly counter-attack.

But yes the Prussians finally did cause the French to totally withdraw.

[KnightofPhoenix]

The idea of the Prussians coming put pressure on Napoleon to defeat the British as quickly as possible. I think the stress and the fact that Napoleon doesn't have time, was the major reason for his defeat.

Not saying that Wellington wasn't great, he lasted for as long as needed. But I would not place him as Napoleon's equal.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 21 janvier 2011 - 11:52 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

Legacy is all well and good but Wellington did beat Napoleon.

You mean to say Wellington lasted on a hill for an entire day before Blucher came and drew out Napoleon's reserves and won the battle? I am impressed.

And you know what? Wellington himself believed Napoleon was a better general then he.

[KnightofPhoenix]

A more pertinent "contest". Who's better Napoleon, Alexander, Hannibal Barca, Khaled Ibn Al Walid..etc lol

[Costin_Razvan]

In my view? Ghenkis Khan> Napoleon> Muawiyah I.

I wouldn't add Alexander or Hannibal to the list. Oh certainly they were great generals and all, but ultimately Alexander's Empire completely collapsed after his death while Hannibal did not win his war.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:11 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

In terms of the military? Or politicis? Or just in general leadership?

For me, the number one leader whose role encompassed religion, politics, society and military is Prophet Muhammad.
And a few quotations from western historians / scholars:

Micheal Hart: "My choice of Muhammad to lead the list of the world's most influencial persons may surprise some readers and may be questioned by others, but he was the only man in history who was supremely succesful on both the religious and secular levels."

Thomas
Carlyle: "How one man single-handedly, could wield warring tribes and wandering bedouins into a most powerful civilised nation in less than 2 decades." (it was just oen decade actually. From 622 to 632)

Jules Masserman: "Leaders must fullfill three functions:
- Leaders must provide the well being of the lead.
- Leaders must provide a social organisation in which people feel relatively secure
- That this Leader must provide his people with one set of beliefs.
Perhaps the greatest leader of all times was Muhammad, who combined all three functions."

Lamartine: "If greatness of purpose, smallness of means and astounding results are the three criterias to human genius, who would dare compare any man in modern history with Muhammad?

Philosopher, orator, apostle, legislator, warrior, conqueror of ideas, restorer of rational dogmas, of a cult without images. The founder of 20 terrestial empires and of one spiritual empire, that is Muhammad.
As regard to all the standarts by which human greatness may be measured, we may well ask: Is there any man greater than he?"

Muawiyah was great and I admire him. But he would have been nothing without Prophet Muhammad.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:13 .

[Jon Jern_]

I'm more of a Wellington guy myself.

Cool Raynor picture, yo.

[Giggles_Manically]

If you list all their accomplishments then many generals fall far behind Muhammad.



Augustus would probably be right up there as well.

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

And it didn't end with him. His legacy created an spread of Islam, and by 712, less than 100 years after his death, From Portugal to Persia was a vast islamic empire.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Giggles_Manically wrote...

If you list all their accomplishments then many generals fall far behind Muhammad.

Augustus would probably be right up there as well.

Augustus would definately rank high.
But a few things that would keep him below Muhammad, imo:

- he founded himself upon already established institutions (though crumbling) and the legacy of Caesar was isntrumental for his rise to power (iwithout Ceasar, I don't think there would have been an Augustus). Muhammad literally started from scratch. This is also true of the military. Prophet Muhammad created the first Arab army from scratch.

- The only semblance of idealogy that Augustus tried to have, the "cult of virtue", was generally of mixed success (and he apparently was hypocritical towards it, he shaged a lot of women). Ideologically speaking, the legacy of Prophet Muhammad is ever present.  

But I would definately rank Augustus very high. Top 5 most likely.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:28 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Skadi_the_Evil_Elf wrote...

And it didn't end with him. His legacy created an spread of Islam, and by 712, less than 100 years after his death, From Portugal to Persia was a vast islamic empire.

And what's awesome is that he never had a palace, or a statue, or a coin with his name or face on it.
In his last speech, he said he was nothing but a man, a servant to someone greater than all.

Brings a tear to the eye really lol

[Joy Divison]

Augustus was not a military leader. I am not an expert of Middle Eastern history, but I was under the impression while Muhammad, while a leader, was not a military theorist or a strict military tactician such as Hannibal or Alexander were.



Hannibal did not win, but neither did Napoleon. If aliens were invading and the humans had to pick one leader to fight a battle for the survival of the planet and I could pick anyone in our history, I'd probably take Hannibal. I know he lost at Zama but Scipio had Carthage's best soldiers on his side.



Genghis Khan, Alexander, and Hán Xìn, were damn good though...

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...

And what's awesome is that he never had a palace, or a statue, or a coin with his name or face on it.
In his last speech, he said he was nothing but a man, a servant to someone greater than all.

Brings a tear to the eye really lol

because such things are the sign of ego, which fades. There are far more people in the world who know the life/deeds of Muhammed than know the life/deeds of Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, or anyone else who had grand statues/temples/monuments devoted to their memory.

Religion and spirituality transcend politics and history in the minds of the majority of people, and the writings of prophets and priests often outlive the civilizations/empires that spawned them.

[Costin_Razvan]

The more I learn about the Muslims the more I respect them.

That said, while I do find Muhammad impressive I cannot put him in a top three list given what the others on mine have done. Certainly Muawiyah started based on what Muhammad had done but he did achieve a lot even so.

Meanwhile Ghenkis Khan started from nothing and created the biggest empire ( besides the British one ) in the entire world, even though it only lasted around one hundred years before it began to destroy itself, the legacy it left on the world is a strong one.

Napoleon also left a very strong military and political legacy in his wake. While Muhammad did leave the strongest legacy of them all, it should be noted the ones I mention did change quite a great deal of the world while they lived.

 There are far more people in the world who know the life/deeds of Muhammed than know the life/deeds of Julius Ceasar, Napoleon, or anyone else who had grand statues/temples/monuments devoted to their memory.  

That is because his life/deeds are deeply tied into the Islamic religion itself.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2011 - 12:54 .

[KnightofPhoenix]

Joy Divison wrote...
I am not an expert of Middle Eastern history, but I was under the impression while Muhammad, while a leader, was not a military theorist or a strict military tactician such as Hannibal or Alexander were.
 

He was not a tactician.
But he was a military leader in the sense he founded the first Arab army from scratch, literally.

Before, Arab warfare was so primitive it's almot pathetic. There was no conceptions of strategic goals. It was just meeting on a field, champions fighting each other, a general brawl that lasted for two minutes, then withdrawal. Casualties were very minimal.
Muhammad changed that and used the military for long term strategic objectives.

There was no Arab armies perse before Muhammad, it was a tribe, with several clan leaders going together with no chain of command or formations or groups. Not so under Prophet Muhammad, who reformed the entire thing. He established a firm chain of command, with formations and groups capable of executing orders from their superiors. When Abu Bakr, his immediate succesor, was able to coordinate 12 different military campaigns in the Riddah War, and several campaigns in Syria and Iraq, that could not have been possible without Muhammad.
In addition, his campaign in Kheybar, that involved siege warfare and dividing, isolating and conquering 7 forts, was something Arabs never dreamed of doing before.

Also, there was no coordination between cavalry, archers and infantry before. They just operated independently and oblivious to each other. With Muhammad, it became possible to have a high level of coordination and this is evident in the wars against Byzantium and Persia.

Also, it's clear from the size of the armies he mustered. Before he died, at Tabouk in 630, he amassed an army of around 30.000. An unprecedented number of Arab soldiers.

So he brought military sophistication, rationalization and structure, to a society that never had a real army.
It also inevitably compromised the old Arab ideals of pseudo "chivalry", where honor was all that mattered and warfare was kind of a sport to gain some honour. With Muhammad, it became much more pragmatic and goal driven. Indeed, he said "war is deception", which is exactly what Sun Tzu said.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:06 .

[Costin_Razvan]

Hannibal did not win, but neither did Napoleon. If aliens were invading and the humans had to pick one leader to fight a battle for the survival of the planet and I could pick anyone in our history, I'd probably take Hannibal. I know he lost at Zama but Scipio had Carthage's best soldiers on his side.

Obviously Hannibal scores a lot of points for defeating the might of the Roman army with such irregular troops as he had. That said I would probably want Sun Tzu.

[KnightofPhoenix]

Costin_Razvan wrote...

The more I learn about the Muslims the more I respect them.

That said, while I do find Muhammad impressive I cannot put him in a top three list given what the others on mine have done. Certainly Muawiyah started based on what Muhammad had done but he did achieve a lot even so.

Not that I doubt Muawiyah's greatness, but what he achieved was really also based on the work of Umar Ibn al Khattab, who in my opinion was the best Muslim leader in the years after Prophet Muhammad died.
Muawiyah did co-found the first Muslim navy and had a surprising amount of success until greek fire was introduced. 

But in general, even politically, I think Prophet Muhammad was his superior. Even when it came to cunning and Muawiyah is considered one of the four most cunning Muslims ever.

In fact, I think Abd Al Malik Ibn Marwan achieved slightly more than Muawiyah. Muawiyah's system was based on pleasing all the tribal leaders. It worked under him, but failed under his successors. It's really Abd Al Malik who created the first Muslim Imperial state. Also thanks to Al Hajjaj Ibn Yusuf al Thaqqafi, who most Muslims would equate with oppression and tyranny (I don't, though he was definately brutal).

As for Gengis Khan's legacy. Most of it is stained by blood.
The Mongols did achieved things politically, economically and scientifically (borrowed from others, but still). But they really never came to be as sophisticated as the civilizations and peoples they massacred.

Though of course today, some would argue that Prophet Muhammad's legacy is horrible, due to recent events.
I think hsitory clearly contradicts them, but oh well.

Modifié par KnightofPhoenix, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:07 .

[Addai]

I find it hard to admire anyone, no matter how gifted or successful, who applies his gifts to territorial expansion far beyond the actual need of sustenance. But I don't much like colonialists in any form. Damn Orlesians! (on topic LOL)

Modifié par Addai67, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:06 .

[Skadi_the_Evil_Elf]

KnightofPhoenix wrote...


Before, Arab warfare was so primitive it's almot pathetic. There was no conceptions of strategic goals. It was just meeting on a field, champions fighting each other, a general brawl that lasted for two minutes, then withdrawal. Casualties were very minimal.

Wow. Sounds like my family reunions.

Muhammad changed that and used the military for long term strategic objectives.

There was no Arab armies perse before Muhammad, it was a tribe, with several clan leaders going together with no chain of command or formations or groups. Not so under Prophet Muhammad, who reformed the entire thing. He established a firm chain of command, with formations and groups capable of executing orders from their superiors. When Abu Bakr, his immediate succesor, was able to coordinate 12 different military campaigns in the Riddah War, and several campaigns in Syria and Iraq, that could not have been possible without Muhammad.
In addition, his campaign in Kheybar, that involved siege warfare and dividing, isolating and conquering 7 forts, was something Arabs never dreamed of doing before.

Also, there was no coordination between cavalry, archers and infantry before. They just operated independently and oblivious to each other. With Muhammad, it became possible to have a high level of coordination and this is evident in the wars against Byzantium and Persia.

Also, it's clear from the size of the armies he mustered. Before he died, at Tabouk in 630, he amassed an army of around 30.000. An unprecedented number of Arab soldiers.

So he brought military sophistication, rationalization and structure, to a society that never had a real army.
It also inevitably compromised the old Arab ideals of pseudo "chivalry", where honor was all that mattered and warfare was kind of a sport to gain some honour. With Muhammad, it became much more pragmatic and goal driven.

And all this by a man born an illiterate merchant's son. 

Some people just got vision.

[Costin_Razvan]

Some people are just prophets of God.

 Though of course today, some would argue that Prophet Muhammad's legacy is horrible, due to recent events.  

I would say those people are idiots, especially given the Muslim Religion condemns them.

Modifié par Costin_Razvan, 22 janvier 2011 - 01:09 .