[Tovarish Spetsnaz]

and I don't believe the Macedonians are considered to really be Greek by all accounts, then again I could be wrong

The Macedonians weren't Greeks. As you point out...the accounts from the Greeks themself say they were not Greeks. In fact...the Greeks played a SMALL role in Alexander's conquests. The Greek city states only send a small force to Alexander in aid...but even that was eventually withdrawn and Alexander didn't like to rely on the Greeks. His army was mostly made up of Macedonians, Thracians, Illyrians and Epiriots.

The nature of the Macedonians is the biggest mystery I think from those times. No one knows who they were. They didn't speak Greek..even though they wrote in Greek and carried out international affairs in Greek (since Greek was the standard language in the "known" world then). But they had their own language... Albanians and many western historians claim the Macedonians were an Illyrian tribe...and spoke a dialect of Illyrian. Alexander's mother was Epiriot (the other group of people which later become known as Albanians). They support this because ancient Greek historians said the Macedonian language was very similar to the Illyrian...even though they couldn't understand either. The Macedonians themselves were called "barbarians" by the Greeks...meaning non-Hellenics. Probably...they were a mixture of Illyrians and Thracians...but even that is just a theory. No one knows. But perhaps it should be noted that the kingdoms of Macedonia, Illyria and Epirus at one point united...so maybe there was something connecting the Macedonians with them.

Don't tell the Greeks

So when people call Alexander a Greek and the Macedonian conquests as Greek....they are wrong. The Greeks hated the Macedonians and our very own Demosthenes led the Greek fight against the Macedonians (until he was defeated and had to go take refuge with the Persians. In fact...a VERY large number of Greek mercenaries joined the Persians to fight against the Macedonians which they precieved as even a greater danger.

[Visage of Glory]

Hey! I supported Alexander the Great and the Macedonians. Does no one listen to me?

And I think Haninnibal was the best. He almost smashed the entire Roman society with just one army. He did not get any reinforcements or supplies other than what he could scrounge up from the local populace. Think how hard it would have been to fight a war using local tribes instead of the your own well-trained army. Hannibal did not lose one battle in Italy. It was not until Africanus brought the battle to Africa that Hannibal lost a battle. The amount of Roman casualities were insane. They lost over 45,000 men in the battle of Canae. Hannibal Barca is my hero.

[Stygian]

Hm Let me think. I'd have to put Alexander the Great first above all others (though could we call it a 'machine'?). Definitions come into play here, what do we mean by machine? do we mean how effective they are over a sustained time at warfare? which would entail the economy, the culture and the structure of the whole society, or are we strickly speaking about military engagements and efficientcy?.

[fastspawn]

I might be deviating when we talk about machines, but if i was to vote for the greatest leader of a machine it would be Genghis.

Temujin was born in 1162 as the son of the chief of the Yakka Mongols. When he turned 10, his father was poisoned to death. Temujin then became chief. When he did, all of the tribe members deserted him. He then lived a harsh lonely existence, digging roots for food and only owning seven sheep. Three years later, he was talking to a group of his former tribe members, explaining his military and political beliefs. They liked his ideas and many more people began listening to them. He used these audiences to form alliances and the alliances into armies. He used strict discipline and tough training to organize a superior army. Temujin next wrote the first Mongol code of laws called Yasa. The laws stated that he must choose his officers and rank by achievement, not their family connections. The laws also said his commandos must stay loyal to their leader or ruler. From then on, Temujin’s goal was to leave the world better than he found it. He used his armies to take over neighboring tribes. Soon, Temujin had all of Mongolia! He then set out on a quest to take over all of China. He would do so by conquering the three main empires that made up China. First the smallest, Xi Xia. Then the Qin. And finally the largest, Na-Chung.

-Uniting the tribes through force of will alone. At 10 he lost everything, at 13 he could convince his fellow tribespeople to unite under him. What were you doing at 13?

-One of the first instances of a professional military constitution, promotion based on merit,not kinship. (Jebe and Subodai were both of ignoble birth, but rose to his right hand. Jebe was once his enemy in fact)

What did Genghis do, from the age of 13 to 65?

-He united all the tribes around Mongolia (before that they were just tribes not a united force at all. In all he united a country of around 700,000 people. He finished uniting them at age of 42, calling himself Genghis Khan.(Universal Ruler)

-In the last 23 years of his life, starting off with his small base in Mongolia he did the following.

-Subjugated the Tanguts, overlords of NW China.

-Destroyed the Jurchens, or what some people call Jin China (North of Sung China)

-Wanted to stop fighting after gaining all this land. BUT apparently a Muhammad Shah of the Khwarzam Empire (which occupied Persia and Transoxiana) decided this "nobody of a tribal leader" could not be permitted to trade with the West. So he executed the Mongolian traders.

This is what happened.

Genghis Khan launched a war against Khwarazm, the Mongols believing that their gods were superior to Allah. In 1219, Genghis Khan and his Mongol army drove through Transoxiana, engaging in difficult assaults against prosperous cities such as Bukhara (now Uzbekistan) and Samarkand. In reprisal for resistance to Mongol advances, and reprisal for uprisings against Mongol occupation, the Mongols laid waste to various cities, including Samarkand, and put the people of those cities to the sword. According to a Muslim writer, Genghis Khan drew from some old fashioned religion and told the Muslims,

I am the punishment of God. If you had not committed great sins, God would not have sent punishment like me upon you.

The Mongols pushed into Persia. While Genghis Khan was consolidating his conquests there, a force of 40,000 Mongol horsemen pushed through Azerbaijan and Armenia. They crushed Georgian crusaders, captured a Genoese trading fortress in Crimea and spent the winter along the coast of the Black Sea. Then, as they were headed back home they met 80,000 warriors led by Prince Mstitslav of Kiev. The battle of Kalka River (1223) commenced, and the Mongols routed the prince's army.

http://www.globaled.org/nyworld/materia ... wdid2.html

Link to Battle of Kalka River. Mtislav 80,000 vs Jebe 20,000.

-At the end of this foray to the West, 1225, Genghis ruled everything between the Caspian and the Korean Peninsula.
In terms of Square Miles conquered, he had conquered more than any man did in history, and any probably will in the foreseeable future.

-He fell off his horse in 1227, but due to his well-sorted out organization, the empire did not crumble.

-His third son, by his diktat, became the new Khan.

-The most famous battle was in Liegnitz, Poland. the Teutonic Knights were massacred there.

http://historymedren.about.com/library/ ... vasion.htm

Basically Massacred is not an exaggeration

[naked_turk]

My personal favourites are:

1) Persian army of the Achamenian dynasty. Back in 550 BC, they managed to control all of the Middle East, most of Central Asia and the Caucasus, along with parts of Europe, Africa, and India.

2)Ottomans -- Especially the Army of Sultan Suleyman the Great, mid to late 1500's.

3) Persian Sassanian dynasty. They held back the "mighty" Roman armies for hundreds of years, at times defeating them horribly and driving deep into Anatolia. King Shapur slayed one Roman emperor in battle, and captured another, forever after using Emperor Valerian as a stool to mount his horse:

[Emperor Valerian bowing down to King Shapur in defeat. Beside him stands Philip the Arabian, also defeated.]

4) And of course the Assyrians... Who wouldn't like a people who salted their enemies' wounds, skinned enemy aristocracy alive and used the skin to cover their city walls? And not to mention salting the farmland so nothing would EVER grow again

The Spartans hands down. 300 men holding off 10,000.

When your only source is a Greek "historian" writing stories of Greek glory... it's not going to be hostorically accurate at all.

[fastspawn]

actually i wondered why the Persians were so dumb as to attack through a bottlenecked valley against a army of hoplites.

They could have just shot arrows at them.

the map was some thing like this then

g=Phalanx 6 lines with 50 abreast /
---------------------------------------/
--------------------------------------/
*******g.g.g
*******g.g.g /tab beach with 100 thousand persian soldiers.
*******g.g.g
---------------------------------------\
--------------------------------------- \
-----------------------------------------\
\

Now in thermopylae, the logical thing for the 100k persians to do would either skirt around the shore finding another entrance, or just rain arrows against the hoplites.

No, they have to run straight into the spears of the phalanx. in the end 10000 persians died for the 300 spartans.

A phalanx is usually a formation with the front (or first two to three rows dependant on size of formation and length of spear) sticking out their spears forward, and the backwards rows raising their spears around 70degrees, to protect against missiles. The worst method to defeat them is to try to break their ranks by direct charge because, overcoming a direct charge is what they are good at (plus if they charge they really would scare the opposition.)

[clownboy]

I have to agree with fastspawn - for sheer rapacious increase of lands and titles through force, Genghis takes the Ares Award.

[TROI]

Brief account of agincourt:

On 25 October 1415, the French forces blocked the road to Calais and challenged Henry to battle. The lines were drawn in some recently plowed fields between the villages of Agincourt and Tramecourt. English forces, weary and ill from the long march, were outnumbered by the French forces and appeared to be doomed. At first, the French waited; Henry ordered the English line to move forward to extreme longbow range and stop. The first round of arrows to strike the French ignited a calvary charge and the battle was joined.



The calvary charge was blunted by concentrated English longbow firing, the muddy field, and wooden stakes the English archers had driven into the ground. The French nobles, knights, and men-at-arms advanced on foot towards the English infantry. By the time they reached the English line, most were exhausted by the struggle through the mud. The French ignored the English archers (who were firing constantly) so as to gain glory by defeating the English nobles. Those French men felled by arrows or pushed to the ground were helpless because their heavy armor kept them from standing. The English line held while the lightly-armored (thus nimble) archers killed prostrate French. The battle turned into a rout and the French departed the field.

While sources vary, it appears that the English lost a few hundred men while the French lost several thousand. The English longbowmen certainly played a major role but the primary reason the French were defeated was their lack of a unified command. The French were provoked into an attack on unfavorable terms and no commander on the field had the ability to stop the charge.

An amazing feat, as it wasn't a defence but a pitched battle with the English outnumber 9 to 1, facing the likes of prestigious French knights and hereldary. The English archers and King Henry managed to get back to England unscathed. It was this battle that made the longbow man the unit to have in any battle field scenario.

[Al Khabir]

We were only outnumbered 3 to 1 I believe, but the fact remains that their troops were the elite and cream of the army, while three quaters of our army was made up of the peasant levy of longbowmen, and as you said, dysentry, malnutrition and exhaustion was having a dire effect on the English army.

We still won. England ruled.

[TROI]

Really only three to one? I need to stop taking figures my Dad tells me in a rant of patriotic fervour seriously

[fastspawn]

I got a book by an Englishman, Col. Alfred Burne, quite a famous military historian.

His figures for Agincourt are these

English
900 men at arms
5000 longbowmen
100 nobles (knights, dismounted more likely)
casualties before battles were around 5%
putting the figure around 5,700 (usually its the longbowmen that get wounded first)

Most historians agree with ~6000 as a figure

French

Estimation of the French is harder.
Reason being, no one not even the commanders, knew how many levies they brought with them. Estimation varies from 10k to 200k. (yes 200k)
However Burne's Opinion is that it is 24,000 (he took into account the formation of the French Army, space to maneauver, ground, columns everything as a tactician could do)

His figure agrees with the only historian on the scene at Agincourt, the Monk of St Denys.
--------------------------------
Source: The Hundred Years War(1955) Alfred Burne.

I bought it for 20 bucks in my University.

[Gothmog]

-The Mongols under Gengis Khan. They conquered huge land extensions with a small Army which was actually inferior, in technology, to may of their opponents.

[Bean]

Gonna go with the Gallic village of Asterix! My sense of reality is confused, but they are the greatest war machine ever.

[naked_turk]

actually i wondered why the Persians were so dumb as to attack through a bottlenecked valley against a army of hoplites.
...
No, they have to run straight into the spears of the phalanx. in the end 10000 persians died for the 300 spartans.

Even after I told you, you repeated the exact same thing as before?

That account is taken straight out of Herodotus' histories. He was another one of those much-acclaimed historians of ancient Greece. These Greek "historians" are famous for writing interesting stories of far-off lands and peoples... which turn out to be complete falsifications. They wrote about such things as the "Marathon Run"... Though it NEVER happened. They described every little detail of the hanging gardens of Babylon (every so-called-historian's version seems to vary greatly though)... without EVER having stepped into Babylon. Herodotus is no exception. He wrote and wrote of the details of the glorious battles of the Greeks... without EVER having been there to witness it. I've read much of the stories he's authored... and they're just that, stories. They're like something pulled straight out of a Greek myth.

Now, tell me, when your only source is the Greek "historians," who wrote stories of Greek glory... Is it going to be even remotely accurate?

[Atromos]

The mongols ruled huge and vast amounts of territory, yes. But only 25% of the land in China is habitable, the rest is mountains and such. But yes large land amounts. Germany was incredibly powerful in my eyes because of WWI when they got the crap slapped out of them and had the whole world ruled against them, then they came back and that one country almost whipped the crap out of the world. If it weren't for the Zimmerman Note during WWI, they might have gotten further, and you ahve to realize that the League of Nations was totally geared towards keeping Germany from ever fighting ever again. In 20 years, they came back and challenged (and defeated) western europe, east europe, and russia (of course with the help of the japanese). In terms of GREATNESS, it's really hard to say. Im gonna put my money on Britains though because they really enslaved every bastard known to man and for a DAMN long time.

[Crazy Brown Guy]

Greatest military leader of all time is Ashoka and his Maurya Empire. Guess who he is? Guess what empire that is?

[Piano Red]

Perhaps you could enlighten us maybe?

[fastspawn]

The mongols ruled huge and vast amounts of territory, yes. But only 25% of the land in China is habitable, the rest is mountains and such. .

Not true, most of the land in China is habitable, why else do you think China has had the largest population of people since time immemorial.
Anyway, even if we discount the "unhabitable areas", the Mongols still took over 3 kingdoms in China, the khwarzam shah's empire, The Rus Princes territories, Korea, whole of Central Asia, Poland, to nearly reach Vienna (Ogadai died, and the whole of Europe was spared from being overrun by the Mongols.)

[Atromos]

But think... how much of the United States is inhabited compared to all the land we have? It's not like there is 1 person every square foot over the whole country just as only 25% of China is inhabited.

[Stipe]

That is irrelevant really. The simple reality is that China was the most advanced nation on Earth with a massive amount of resources and a huge population. The Mongols were steppe nomads whose entire population was maybe 700,000 and the Mongols steamrolled huge chunks of China, Central Asia, Persia, and Eastern/Central Europe.

When you take into account comparative size and resources, the Mongol conquest just seems more and more amazing.